# Physics Working Group

The primary physics task of STAR is to study the formation and characteristics of the quark-gluon plasma (QGP), a state of matter believed to exist at sufficiently high energy densities. Detecting and understanding the QGP allows us to understand better the universe in the moments after the Big Bang, where the symmetries (and lack of symmetries) of our surroundings were put into motion.

Unlike other physics experiments where a theoretical idea can be tested directly by a single measurement, STAR must make use of a variety of simultaneous studies in order to draw strong conclusions about the QGP. This is due both to the complexity of the system formed in the high-energy nuclear collision and the unexplored landscape of the physics we study. STAR therefore consists of several types of detectors, each specializing in detecting certain types of particles or characterizing their motion. These detectors work together in an advanced data acquisition and subsequent physics analysis that allows final statements to be made about the collision.

The physics of star can be divided into several topics, with many overlaps between topics. In STAR, each of these topics is explored within a physics working group which develops the analysis techniques and software needed to focus on its interests.

# Bulk correlations

Topics include correlations related to bulk phenomena, including femtoscopic correlations, flow, event-by-event fluctuations.

The bulkcorr pwg protected area can be found at: http://www.star.bnl.gov/protected/bulkcorr/

The forum can be found at: http://www.star.bnl.gov/HyperNews-star/protected/get/bulkcorr.html

Current conveners: Nu Xu & W.J. Llope

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stony Brook collaboration meeting agenda (tentative)

20” each talk including time for discussions

Each talk should cover the following issues:

(i) Physics motivations

(ii) Analysis status

(iii) Summary

(iv) QM2015: Y/N

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/conference/timetable/talk/32871

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Most recent collaboration meeting: Nov 3-7 BNL
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/meetings/star-collaboration-meeting-november-3-7
Joint bulk and LF session: https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/event/1999/11/30/joint-session-lfs-and-bulkcorr-145-gev
Wednesday bulk corr session: https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/meetings/star-collaboration-meeting-november-3-7/bulk-correlation-afternoon-session
Bulk corr highlights
: https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/meetings/star-collaboration-meeting-november-3-7/plenary-session-ii/pwg-report-highlight-talk-1

New videoconference software!!
STAR is gradually moving to a new videoconferene software, BlueJeans:
info from Jerome: http://www.star.bnl.gov/HyperNews-star/protected/get/starsoft/8974.html
phone bridge: http://bluejeans.com/numbers

Permanent meeting info:
To join the Meeting:
https://bluejeans.com/709043434

To join via Browser:
https://bluejeans.com/709043434/browser

To join with Lync:
https://bluejeans.com/709043434/lync

To join via Cisco Jabber Video:
https://bluejeans.com/709043434/jabber

To join via Room System:
Video Conferencing System: bjn.vc -or- 199.48.152.152
Meeting ID: 709043434

To join via Phone:
1) Dial:
+1 408 740 7256
+1 888 240 2560(US Toll Free)
+1 408 317 9253(Alternate Number)
(see all numbers - http://bluejeans.com/numbers)
2) Enter Conference ID: 709043434

GPC website for papers:

http://www.star.bnl.gov/protected/common/GPCs/gpc-committees.xml

# 2009.09.26 parity estimates for BES Run 10 from Au+Au9.2 GeV

See this BES-hyper-new thread for more discussions

Fig. 1 Parity error estimates for 5M events of 9.2 GeV collisions.

• Upper left: reference multiplicity distribution for Au+Au@200GeV
• Lower left: reference multiplicity distribution for Au+Au@9.2GeV
• Upper right: actual errors for v2-scaled 3-particle correlations (same charge)
vs. reference multiplicity for Au+Au@200GeV
• Lower right: error estimates for v2-scaled 3-particle correlations (same charge)
vs. reference multiplicity for Au+Au@9.2GeV
Au+Au@20GeV points with the same RefMult value are converted
(based on equation shown in the legend)
to the error estimates for 9.2GeV collisions

Fig. 2 Parity error estimates are shown together with possible singal
for 1M events of 9.2 GeV collisions
(assuming the same values for 3-particle correlator as in 200GeV collisions)

# Charged particle and strange hadron elliptic flow from Cu+Cu collisions

### Charged particle and strange hadron elliptic flow from sNN = 62.4 and 200 GeV Cu+Cu collisions

Paper propsal web page

# DPF 2009 presentation (Ilya Selyuzhenkov)

DPF 2009 presentation (Ilya Selyuzhenkov)

# DPF 2009 proceedings (Ilya Selyuzhenkov)

### DPF 2009 proceedings

Ilya Selyuzhenkov

"Azimuthal charged particle correlations
as a probe for local strong parity violation
in heavy-ion collisions"

# Joint CATHIE/TECHQM Workshop, December 14-18, 2009

Ilya Selyuzhenkov for the STAR Collaboration

Plenary talk at Joint CATHIE/TECHQM Workshop (December 14-18, 2009) on

"STAR probes of local strong parity violation in heavy ion collisions"

# QM2009 poster abstracts on Parity violation

### QM2009 poster abstracts on Parity violation at STAR

1. Poster 1
"Strong parity violation at STAR:
Quantifying background effects with Monte-Carlo event generators
and detector effects study"

2. Poster 2
"Strong parity violation at STAR:
Evaluating experimental measurement technique
and estimating background contributions from multi-particle production processes

Parity group recommended
Evan Finch (Yale) and Ilya Selyuzhenkov (Indiana)
as a possible candidates to present these posters at QM2009.

# 2010.06.07 RHIC & AGS Users' Meeting: Workshop on Local strong parity violation

LPV workshop website:
http://www.bnl.gov/rhic_ags/users_meeting/Workshops/3.asp

Presentation:

Ilya Selyuzhenkov for the STAR Collaboration

"Probes of local strong parity violation: Experimental results from STAR"

Slides: see attached pdf(s)

# Charge flow

### Charged particle anisotropic flow

#### Directed flow measurement in AuAu@62GeV

Two methods were used to calculate directed flow:

• three particle correlations (mixed harmonic method). FTPC and TPC data were used.
• two particle correlations with spectator nucleons. Data from newly installed in 2004 ZDC SMD detector were used.

#### Charged particle elliptic flow in AuAu@62GeV and AuAu200GeV data (RUN IV)

The measurement of elliptic flow in AuAu at 62 and 200 GeV data were performed using TPC and FTPC data. The non-flow contribution to two particle correlations at different pseudorapidity regions was discussed.

Supporting materials:

# Down-scaled DST

#### DownScaleDst file format description

Here is the brief list of what are in the Down Scale DST files:

• Basic event information, like Event Id, refMult, etc.
• Calculated event plane components X and Y from TPC and FTPCs (not corrected)
• Information to get event plane from ZDC SMD.
• V0 tracks with applied cuts to select Lambda / Anti-Lambda / K0Short
• Primary tracks information.
For p_t < 1.8 GeV each 50th track from FTPCs and each 100th from TPC are taken.
For p_t > 1.8 GeV all tracks are taken.

NOTE: There is no event cuts - all events are taken.

#### Why we need DownScaleDst file?

The main advantage of DownScaleDst files is smaller size compared to STAR MuDst files. It is about 50 times smaller than those of MuDst files. The smaller size results in faster data analysis.

Down Scale files could be used in flow analysis of charged or strange particles, high pt correlations.

#### DownScaleDst TTree

mZdcSmdWest[16]
mZdcSmdEast[16]
mCtbMultiplicity
mPrimaryVertexX
mPrimaryVertexY
mPrimaryVertexZ
mX[2][3][2][31] // X component of the event plane vector
mY[2][3][2][31] // Y component of the event planevector
// Q[charge][harmonic][subEvent][etaBin]; harmonic = 0 => multiplicity;
//ETA BINS: FTPCE -4.1 < eta < -2.5 (8 bins); FTPCW 2.5 < eta < 4.1 (8 bins); TPC -1.5 < eta < 1.5 (15 bins)

mEventId
mRunId
mNumberOfGoodPrimaryTracks
mNumberOfV0Tracks
mNumberOfPrimaryTracks
mNominalTriggerId[32]
mCentrality // centrality calculated according to the standard STAR refMult regions
mRefMult
mRefMultEtaWide // refMult calculated from tracks with wide eta cut |eta|<0.8

#### V0 branch

V0.mTypeOfStrangeParticle // 0 Lambda; 1 Anti-Lambda; 2 K0Short
V0.mMomPos.fX
V0.mMomPos.fY
V0.mMomPos.fZ
V0.mMomNeg.fX
V0.mMomNeg.fY
V0.mMomNeg.fZ
V0.mPtV0
V0.mPtPos
V0.mPtNeg
V0.mIsPosPrimary // need to remove auto correlations if the pos V0 track is in Event Plane
V0.mIsNegPrimary // if the neg V0 track is in Event Plane v0IsPrimary = etaBin+1-(nEtaTotal+1)*(1-subEvent)
V0.mPseudoRapV0
V0.mPseudoRapPos
V0.mPseudoRapNeg
V0.mMassLambda
V0.mMassAntiLambda
V0.mMassK0Short

#### Primary branch

Primary.mId
Primary.mCharge
Primary.mMaxPoints
Primary.mFitPoints
Primary.mTrackInEventPlaneFlag // need to remove auto correlations if track is in Event Plane TrackInEventPlane = etaBin+1-(nEtaTotal+1)*(1-subEvent)
Primary.mDEdx
Primary.mPt
Primary.mPhi
Primary.mEta
Primary.mDcaGlobal.mX1
Primary.mDcaGlobal.mX2
Primary.mDcaGlobal.mX3

# Flow acceptance

### Effects of non-uniform acceptance in anisotropic flow measurement

Phys. Rev. C.

#### Abstract

The applicability of anisotropic flow measurement techniques and their extension for detectors with nonuniform azimuthal acceptance are discussed. Considering anisotropic flow measurements with two and three (mixed harmonic) azimuthal correlations we introduce a set of observables based on the x and y components of the event flow vector. These observables provide independent measures of anisotropic flow and can be used to test the self-consistency of the analysis. Based on these observables we propose a technique that explicitly takes into account the effects of nonuniform detector acceptance. Within this approach the acceptance corrections, as well as parameters that define the method applicability, can be determined directly from experimental data. For practical purposes a brief summary of the method is provided at the end.

# Flow systematics

#### FTPC multiplicity study for AuAu@200GeV

The strange "File Id" dependence in both FTPC East and FTPC West were found in AuAu@200GeV data. It was fould that for the same production library there was files produced with different library setup, and large part of the files was with broken FTPC data.

Supporting materials:

#### Anisotropic flow in the case of azimuthally asymmetric detector

The method for acceptance correction in the case of azimuthally asymmetric detector (for example ZDC SMD in STAR) was suggested. The method was successfully applied in the anisotropic flow analysis of AuAu@62GeV ZDC SMD data

Supporting materials:

# Global polarization

### Global polarization measurement in Au+Au collisions (paper proposal)

Phys. Rev. C.

#### Abstract

The system created in non-central relativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions possesses large orbital angular momentum. Due to spin-orbit coupling, particles produced in such a system could become globally polarized along the direction of the system angular momentum. We present the results of Lambda and Anti-Lambda hyperon global polarization measurements in Au+Au collisions at sqrt{s_NN}=62 GeV and 200 GeV performed with the STAR detector at RHIC.

The observed global polarization of Lambda and Anti-Lambda hyperons in the STAR acceptance is consistent with zero within the precision of the measurements. The obtained upper limit, |P_{Lambda,Anti-Lambda}| < 0.02, is compared to the theoretical values discussed recently in the literature.

#### Paper draft

GPC: 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, 7.0, 8.0, 9.0, 10.0
Collaboration: 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0
Referee: 15.0 16.0
As sumbitted to PRC: 01 02

#### Comments and reports on the paper

Referee reports

Note: Separate page for the Anti-Lambda hyperon global polarization

#### Figures

Fig.1 Global polarization of Lambda hyperons as a function of Lambda transverse momentum.

Filled circles show the results for Au+Au collisions at sqrt{s_NN}=200 GeV (centrality region 20-70%) and open squares indicate the results for Au+Au collisions at sqrt{s_NN}=62 GeV (centrality region 0-80%).

Fig.2 Global polarization of Lambda hyperons as a function of Lambda pseudorapidity.

Filled circles show the results for Au+Au collisions at sqrt{s_NN}=200 GeV (centrality region 20-70%). A constant line fit to these data points yields P_Lambda = (2.8 +- 9.6)x10^{-3} with chi^2/ndf = 6.5/10. Open squares show the results for Au+Au collisions at sqrt{s_NN}=62 GeV (centrality region 0-80%). A constant line fit gives P_Lambda = (1.9 +- 8.0)x10^{-3} with chi^2/ndf = 14.3/10.

Fig.3 Global polarization of Lambda hyperons as a function of centrality given as fraction of the total inelastic hadronic cross section.

Filled circles show the results for Au+Au collisions at sqrt{s_NN}=200 GeV (centrality region 20-70%) and open squares indicate the results for Au+Au collisions at sqrt{s_NN}=62 GeV (centrality region 0-80%).

#### Conclusion

The Lambda and Anti-Lambda hyperon global polarization has been measured in Au+Au collisions at center of mass energies sqrt{s_NN}=62 and 200 GeV with the STAR detector at RHIC.

An upper limit of |P_{Lambda,Anti-Lambda}| < 0.02 for the global polarization of Lambda and Anti-Lambda hyperons within the STAR acceptance is obtained. This upper limit is far below the few tens of percent values discussed in Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 102301 (2005), but it falls within the predicted region from the more realistic calculations Liang:Xian Workshop (2006) based on the HTL (Hard Thermal Loop) model.

#### Bibliography

1. Globally Polarized Quark-Gluon Plasma in Noncentral A + A Collisions

Z.-T. Liang and X.-N. Wang
Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 102301 (2005) [ erratum:Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 039901 (2006)]

Sergei A. Voloshin
nucl-th/0410089

3. Spin Alignment of Vector Mesons in Non-central A + A Collisions

Z.-T. Liang and X.-N. Wang
Phys.Lett.B629:20-26 (2005) [nucl-th/0411101]

4. Global quark polarization in QGP in non-central AA collisions

Gao Jian-hua and Z. T. Liang
Talk on November 24, 2006 (power point file) at Xi'an Workshop (Xi'an, China)

#### Talks and Publications on the subject

1. Anti-Lambda hyperon global polarization in Au+Au collisions at RHIC

Ilya Selyuzhenkov [for the STAR Collaboration]
International Workshop on "Hadron Physics and Property of High Baryon Density Matter", Xi'an, China (2006)
arXiv:nucl-ex/0702001 (2007)

2. Centrality dependence of hyperon global polarization in Au + Au collisions at RHIC

Ilya Selyuzhenkov [for the STAR Collaboration]
19th International Conference on "Ultra-Relativistic Nucleus-Nucleus Collisions" (Quark Matter 2006) Shanghai, China, 2006
arXiv:nucl-ex/0701034 (2007)

3. Acceptance effects in the hyperons global polarization measurement

Ilya Selyuzhenkov [for the STAR Collaboration]
9th Conference on the Intersections of Particle and Nuclear Physics ( CIPANP 2006), Westin Rio Mar Beach, Puerto Rico, 2006
AIP Conf. Proc. 870, 712 (2006) [arXiv:nucl-ex/0608034]

4. Global polarization measurement in Au+Au collisions

Ilya Selyuzhenkov [for the STAR Collaboration]
International Conference on Strangeness in Quark Matter (SQM 2006), Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2006
J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 32, S557 (2006) [arXiv:nucl-ex/0605035]

5. Global polarization and parity violation in Au+Au collisions

Ilya Selyuzhenkov [for the STAR Collaboration]
Midwest Critical Mass Workshop (MCM), Toledo OH, USA, 2005

6. Global polarization and parity violation study in Au+Au collisions

Ilya Selyuzhenkov [for the STAR Collaboration]
18th International Conference on "Ultra-Relativistic Nucleus-Nucleus Collisions" (Quark Matter 2005), Budapest, Hungary, 2005
Rom.Rep.Phys. 58, 049 (2006) [arXiv:nucl-ex/0510069]

# Acceptance corrections

### Acceptance corrections in global polarization measurement

#### Figures for the A_0 function

Fig.1 A_0 for Lambda (Filled circles) and Anti-Lambda (open squares) hyperons as a function of hyperon pseudorapidity.

Fig.2 A_0 for Lambda (Filled circles) and Anti-Lambda (open squares) hyperons as a function of hyperon transverse momentum.

Fig.3 A_0 for Lambda (Filled circles) and Anti-Lambda (open squares) hyperons as a function of centrality.

#### Figures for the A_2 function

Fig.4 A_2 for Lambda (Filled circles) and Anti-Lambda (open squares) hyperons as a function of hyperon pseudorapidity.

Fig.5 A_2 for Lambda (Filled circles) and Anti-Lambda (open squares) hyperons as a function of hyperon transverse momentum.

### Collaboration comments on "Global polarization measurement in Au+Au collisions"

1. Acceptance effect - results presented without acceptance correction

The reason why we present uncorrected data is that due to detector effects the higher harmonic terms of the global polarization expansion (6) can contribute. To measure higher harmonic terms one needs to use different observable than (3), and such measurement requires an independent analysis.
This question is discussed on page 8 of the paper draft (left column at the bottom):
"Since the values of P_H^(2) (p_t^H, eta^H) are not measured in this analysis we present uncorrected data in Figs.3-8 providing only an estimate of the non-uniform detector acceptance effects."

2. Usually the Equation 1 in traditional polarization measurements (say for example transverse polarization) is written as
dN/dcos(theta) = A(cos(theta))( 1 + alpha P cos(theta))
Where A(cos(theta)) represents the detector/acceptance effects.
I find we do not have an "equality" in the Eqn. 1 in the paper, is it because we do not want to write "A" or is it because we do not know how dN/dcos(theta) should be ?

We do not want to obstruct the first equation with acceptance function and we introduce it only when discussing detector acceptance effect in section IIC (see equation (5)).

3. Further we arrive at Eqn 2 which has a "equality" directly from Eqn 1 which is an approximate relation as per our paper. How is it possible to arrive at an exact relation as in Eqn. 2 from a relation we do not know exactly as in Eqn. 1 may be some things get canceled out or may be I am missing something ....

There is a proportionality sign in equation (1). In the average the proportionality coefficient cancels out and we get the equality sign in (2). Equation (2) assumes the perfect detector acceptance. The effects of non uniform acceptance and modification of this equation are discussed later in section IIC.

4. I understand a two body differential cross sections may be expressed in terms of Legendre Polynomial expansion
dSigma/dOmega = B X Sum(from 0 to n=N) An Pn(cos(theta)) Where Pn = Legendre Polynomial of order "n"
But is it also valid to expand the Polarization P_H as shown in Eqn. 6 ? Are we trying to say the Polarization we are trying to measure in heavy ion collisions is similar to what we studied in electrodynamics - linearly polarized, circular polarization and elliptic polarization ?

We are measuring polarization with respect to the system orbital momentum (perpendicular to the reaction plane) which is defined in transverse plane of the collision (two dimensions). This is the reason why we transform from equation (2) to (3). In two dimensions the appropriate orthogonal set of function in the range of (0,2pi) are cos and sin functions, not the Legendre polynomials.

5. Motivation for presenting Polarization results as a function of various kinematic variables.
We present the results of acceptance uncorrected polarization for lambda hyperons as a function of transverse momentum, pseudorapidity (why not rapidity ?) and centrality. But we do not say why we need to study the polarization as a function of these observables ?

We are studying the polarization as a function of kinematics variables of hyperon (such as p_t and eta) and collision parameters (energy and centrality). This is a complete set of variables on which polarization can depends in heavy ion collisions. Although none of results are significantly deviates from zero, we report them for completeness.

6. From our paper, I could not find what I should expect (even if naive) of polarization variation with respect to these variables.

We are comparing the results with available theory predictions, which are limited so far to those in reference [1-4]. For the moment we have only an estimate of the integrated value for the global polarization, and no expectations on p_t, or centrality dependence. The only expectation is that at mid rapidity the polarization should not change much. Thus we fit the results with constant line.

7. Need for results from p+p and/or d+Au collisions

In principle, based on particle azimuthal distribution in pp or dAu collisions, we can define the quantity similar to the reaction plane in non central AuAu collisions, but physics of such phenomena is different from those of global polarization in heavy ion collisions.

8. "Based on the results in [30], the contribution of feed-downs from multiply strange hyperons (...) is estimated to be less than 15%. This can dilute the measured polarization and introduce a similar systematic uncertainty (~ 15%) to the global polarization measurement.
Does that mean error on Polarization is directly equal to percentage feed down ?

We estimate the feed down effects assuming the same polarization for hyperons and multi-strange hyperons. Thus the uncertainty in polarization is proportional to feed-down from multiply strange hyperons.

9. "Thus, the effect of the spin precession on the global polarization measurements is found to be negligible (<0:1%)."
What is gamma_lambda,lambdabar in the experssion. We need to have a relation between Polarisation and the delta_phi_lambda to understand how the error comes out to be 0.1%.

The gamma_lambda,lambdabar is a Lorenz factor: gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v**2). For p = 3 GeV it is about 2.87. The effect on polarization is defined by cos(delta_phi), what is approximately 1-delta_phi^2/2, since angle delta_phi is small. This leads to the estimate of <0.1%.

10. "In any case, the corresponding corrections to the absolute value of the global polarization are esti- mated to be less than 20% of the extracted polarization values."
The acceptance correction can be 20% as we see from the figures. Does that mean uncertainty due to non uniform acceptance is 20% ?

There are two different contribution from acceptance effects, A_0 and A_2. As it can be seen from equation (9) the term (10) and (11) affect the global polarization in a different way and we have a separate estimate of 20% for each of them.

11. Finally we get 125% uncertainty. With this unceratinty how was the upper limit obtained is not clearly described. What is the confidence level of this upper limit ?

With that many sources of systematic uncertainties it is very difficult to calculate the confidence level, and we feel that it is not needed. If you have any specific idea how to do it, we can try it.

12. I think it is important to atleast have a few lines of discussion regarding what is the difference between this polarisation measurements and the traditional polarisation measurements which usually has been carried out in pp and pA collisions and by E896 in heavy ion collisions.
Since we basically have null results with huge 125% uncertainty, it may be good to provide an outlook for such measurements, will choice of other particles help

The obtained upper limit of 0.01 (or 0.02 together with systematic uncertainties), is very small compared to the first, naive, predictions of 0.3 for the polarization discussed in [1]. At this point the large magnitude of 125% for the relative uncertainty is not change the significance of the results, which gives an order of magnitude smaller value. More work from the theory side has to be done to understand the reason why the polarization is so small.

13. In introduction we mention one of the observable consequence is "polarization of thermal photons" - Just for my information - how can we measure this in heavy ion collisions ?

We can not measure this in STAR, as far as we know.

14. We need to give the reference for STAR detector when it gets mentioned in the Introduction.

We are reffering to the STAR detector in section IIA when discussing the analysis technique. We think it is not necessary to give such a reference in the introduction.

15. Alpha_h is called as a "decay parameter" - it is not clear. Some paper we refer in the current manuscript call it ias "asymmetry parameter" - Why not give a brief description that it is a s-p wave interference term factor ....Or may be say that they are from measurements. or may be say that alpha charecterizes the degree of mixing of parity in the hyperon decay as Lee and Yang found out.

In the PDG book, which we are referring to, there is an introduction to what decay parameter is and how it is defined from the amplitude.

16. Beam energy is given as 62 GeV shouldn't it be 62.4 GeV

Corrected in the paper draft Version 11.

17. Reference ordering is all mixed up. Ref. 12,13,14,15 come after Ref. 16. ref. 21 after Ref. 26 ...etc etc ...

Fixed in the paper draft Version 11.

18. Spell check is needed - for example : multiply strange hyperons --> multiple strange hyperons

Replaced it by "multistrange hyperons" in the paper draft Version 11.

19. Reference to alpha_lambda = 0.642 is PDG in Page # 1 It is actually given in Page # 924!

(answer by Spencer Klein) Ref. 15 is OK as written. The article begins on pg. 1; and we give the first page of journal article references, not the page where the result appears.

20. It is not clear why we need a 3rd order polynomial function in the fitting of Minv. May be we should mention that is for background. Even for background - looking at Fig. 2, it does not seem we need 3rd order polynomial.

This is how it was done. We do not think it needs further explanations.

21. I am not sure if ref. 28 is an experimental paper which measures direct hyperons to be 27% for Lambda. Please let me know how that number is obtained.

This is a theory paper. These numbers can be found in the Tables at the end of this paper.

22. We discuss quite a bit about ZDC SMD finally to say we will use FTPC. May be I missed some of the points for the need to go into detail discussion about ZDC SMD when we do not use their information in the analysis.

We use ZDC SMD to define the sign of directed flow in the FTPC region and consequently reconstruct the system orbital momentum direction as it is explained in the paragraph just after equation (4).

23. It may be better to mention that Eqn.4 is finally used to get all the results figure from 3 to 8

Fixed in the paper draft Version 11.

24. It is not clear what is mean't by "saturation effects in FTPC" it will be nice to see the multiplicity correlation plot for FTPC Vs. TPC.
Just to note : dnch/dy for 10-20% 200 GeV AuAu ~ 484 5 - 10% 200 GeV AuAu ~ 648 For 0-5% AuAu 62.4 GeV it is about 588. So we should be able to get couple of more points in Fig. 5 and 8.

For the FTPC event plane resolution study please have a look at the following slides (in particular page 4):
20060202_ChargedFlowWithFileIdCuts_FlowPhoneMeeting.pdf

25. Did we try fitting 62.4 GeV data in Fig. 4 by first order polynomial and see the results - if yes, can you please let us know the values.

We expect global polarization to be a symmetric function of pseudorapidity, but the first order polynomial is anti-symmetric.

26. We discuss in Page 9 how protons and pions losses can be different and how it affects A0 and A2. In the expresions in Eqn 10 and 11, it seems only protons are relevant. So it is not clear why we discuss the pion acceptance effect on A0.

These functions are calculated in the hyperons rest frame, which is defined both by pion and proton momenta. Thus the acceptance effects both from pion and proton are important.

27. It is not clear why we give Ref. 13 - it was for d+Au collisions.

In this reference the hyperon reconstruction procedure (for dAu) is discussed.

28. It is also not clear why we give so many reference to directed flow measurements, specially when ref. 11 does not have even the relation we are refering to.

Removed in the paper draft Version 11.

29. The author names are written in different way for Ref. 26.

Fixed in the paper draft Version 11.

30. May be make it more clear in the paper by saying
"We do not observe any transfer of global angular momentum of the system to its consitutent particles that leads to particle having a preferential spin orientation"

In the conclusion we are stating that we set an upper limit for the global polarization, what is more than just saying "We do not observe any transfer ...". We think that in the current form the conclusion is more appropriate for the obtained results.

31. From the link you have given regarding what is mean't by "saturation effect in FTPC", shows the v1-FTPC has a difference in value for Fullfield and ReverseFullField configuration for central events. Not sure how that leads to conclusion we make. Because for the reverse and actual field configuration the multiplicity should be same.
So still not clear when we write -
"With higher multiplicity at sNN=200 GeV, saturation effects in the Forward TPC's for the most central collisions become evident, and the estimated reaction plane angle is unreliable."

20050922_FTPCmultiplicity_FlowPhoneMeeting.pdf
On page 3 you can see the correlation between multiplicity in TPC and FTPC. Together with plot for v1 in FTPC pseudorapidity region (what is essentially defines the resolution of the first order event plane from FTPC) this should clarify this question. Note, that we expect RFF and FF results to be consistent. The discrepancy between them for most central collisions is an additional indication on detector effects at higher multiplicities in AuAu@200GeV.
You can also check the links at the FTPC event plane study web page:
"FTPC Systematics"

32. You also mentioned "we have no expectations on pT or centrality"
This is what I read from one of the papers we quote in the paper :
We can also provide other qualitative predictions of the global hyperon polarization PH in non-central heavyion collisions: (1) Hyperons and their anti-particles are similarly polarized along the same direction perpendicular to the reaction plane in non-central heavy-ion collisions.

We check this by measuring both Lambda and anti-Lambda global polarization

33. The global hyperon polarization PH vanishes in central collisions and increases almost linearly with b in semi-central collisions.

The centrality region 0-5% corresponds to a wide range of impact parameters and it is not clear how we can interpret results and compare them with the expected zero polarization at b=0. Together with observed zero signal we afraid that such discussions can be misleading and will potentially confuse the reader.

34. It should have a finite value at small pT and in the central rapidity region. It should increase with rapidity and eventually decreases and vanishes at large rapidities.

We essentially measuring the polarization at mid rapidity and the results are dominated by small p_t region. Again, it is not clear how to compare the obtained zero result in this region with theoretical predictions your are referring to.

35. Since hyperon's production planes are randomly oriented with respect to the reaction plane of heavy-ion collisions, the observed hyperon polarization in p + A collisions should not contribute to the global polarization as we have defined here, except at large rapidity region where directed flow is observed [13].

We have checked this from the measurement. See reference [21] in the paper draft and corresponding text on page 9 (right column, last paragraph):
"The hyperon directed flow is defined as the first order coefficient in the Fourier expansion of the hyperon azimuthal angular distribution with respect to the reaction plane. Due to non-uniform detector acceptance it will interfere with the hyperon global polarization measurement and this can dilute the measured polarization [21]."

36. In future may be we should just look at Eqn 1 from data (dN/dcos(theta) Vs. cos(theta)) as is done in usual polarization measurements. That would have reduced quite a bit of uncertainty from flow related issues. Did we attempt it ?

This method requires to introduce additional bins in theta* and further fits dN/dcos(theta*) distribution assuming the polarization dependence according to equation (1). Reconstructed dN/dcos(theta*) distribution can contains other contributions together with those from global polarization (i.e. directed flow, or higher harmonics from expansion (6)). This requires to make additional assumptions regarding the fitting function, what will complicates the interpretation of the final result.
In the current analysis we are averaging other theta* angle (equations (2) and (3)) and cuts only the particular harmonic in the dN/dcos(theta*) distribution, which corresponds to the polarization contribution. We think is is more straightforward and not biased by assumptions regarding the fitting function. We also have a good control on anisotropic flow contribution in this case.

#### Comments by Huan Z. Huang

1. page 5, left column paragraph 2 on the Sigma0/Lambda ratio. A ratio of 15% without errors was quoted as from reference [29], which is a conference proceeding from Gene Van Buren for the STAR collaboration. I do not think this ratio should be quoted as an official STAR result. The number is smaller than string-fragmentation model calculation (~30%) and the thermal statistical model, which has been used to describe RHIC Au+Au data well, would predict the ratio to be ~65% or so. The systematic error estimate should cover this range of variation in the ratio.

Yes, we estimate systematic errors from Sigma^0 feed-down based on results for dAu collisions. This is the only known measurement by STAR so far. Since we do not have such a measurement for AuAu collisions, we only mention that according to theoretical calculations it is possible for this uncertainty to be larger for AuAu collisions. See page 5, left column, second paragraph from top:
"The Sigma0/Lambda production ratio value (15%) is measured [29] for d+Au and it can be 2-3 times higher for Au+Au collisions (this can affect the estimated uncertainty)."

2. in sections B and C, you presented results without acceptance correction and attribute all acceptance effect in uncertainties. That is an unusual way to present experimental results. I still do not understand fully how the errors were included.

The reason why we present uncorrected data is that due to detector effects the higher harmonic terms of the global polarization expansion (6) can contribute. To measure higher harmonic terms one needs to use different observable than (3), and such measurement requires the independent analysis.
This question is discussed on page 8 of the paper draft (left column at the bottom):
"Since the values of P_H^(2) (p_t^H, eta^H) are not measured in this analysis we present uncorrected data in Figs.3-8 providing only an estimate of the non-uniform detector acceptance effects."

3. For example in figure 9, the value one (unity) corresponds to no polarization (null measurement).

Figure 9 presents the function A_0, which is independent of the global polarization and it is unity in case of perfect acceptance.

4. You seem to attribute the difference from the unity as a relative error on the polarization measurement.

According to equation (9) the deviation of this function from unity affects the overall scale of the measured global polarization. Thus we consider it as a relative uncertainty.

5. in anisotropic flow measurement a phi-weight function is used to calculate the event-plane angle and the resulting event-plane angle is very flat only after the weighting. Did you use the weighting in your PHI_RP calculation? How is this weighting on the event-plane included in the phi angle integration in section C?

We use the same technique as for anisotropic flow measurement. We do the recentering (or shifting) of the event plane vector.
The integration over reaction plane angle is independent from integration over the angles of hyperon and its decay products. Thus effects from event plane determination are separate from acceptance effects due to hyperon's reconstruction procedure. This allows us to integrate over psi_RP in equation (5) and further introduce function A_0 and A_2 in equation (9). The residual effects from event plane determination procedure (after the event plane vector recentering) are taken into account when the results are corrected by the event plane resolution.

6. Is this 15% used for the estimate of the uncertainty? I argued that this range should be increased to include the variation either based on model prediction or errors from Gene Van Buren's measurement if STAR agrees to use the number. I believe STAR's existing publication policy does not favor using Gene's preliminary number.

To our understanding, it is better to base estimates on experimental results (although the preliminary one) rather that completely rely on theoretical assumptions. Note, that Gene mentioned that systematic errors in his measurement are also strongly model dependent. As a compromise, we provide an estimate based on Gene's results and state in the paper draft, that depends on model predictions for Au+Au the systematic uncertainty can be larger.

7. This sounds like because in our analysis we did not measure these quantities, therefore we present the data without the acceptance correction. That does not work well to convince the community about the validity of the analysis IMHO.

The acceptance effects can not be completely taken into account since they affects not only the magnitude of the measured polarization (A_0 term) but due to these effects the higher harmonics of the global polarization expansion (A_2 term) or the hyperon directed flow can contribute. We believe that, providing a partially corrected points will be misleading since it can be understood that we completely correct our results on acceptance. Thus we estimate the acceptance effects from the data and put them together with other systematic uncertainty.

8. If the global polarization value is ZERO, what DOES this relative uncertainty mean? I am not convinced of this relative uncertainty interpretation or derivation.

The relative uncertainty means that if polarization is decreasing in its absolute value (goes to zero) the uncertainty of the measurement is also decreasing (in its value).

9. I think it is necessary to show a coverage of sin(theta*_p) (equation 10) distribution in the paper. Imagine you are not dealing with STAR TPC, you only have a small detector with acceptance centered around the mean value of sin(theta*_p). From equation (3) and equation (10), you may still get a polarization measurement and acceptance A_0 near unity. But this could be misleading because a small acceptance detector may not have the sensitivity to the polarization measurement at all. I think there could be biases in the analysis here which may not be adequately reflected in the numbers shown in the figures.

In your example it is assumed that hyperons theta*_p angle is correlated with the reaction plane angle due to narrow detector acceptance (measured with the same detector). In our measurement these angles are independent, since we are using two different detectors (TPC for hyperons and FTPC to reconstruct the event plane). This validates our derivation in section IIC and equations (8)-(11) where it is assumed that acceptance effects originates from hyperon reconstruction procedure and due to reaction plane angle determination are independent. This also makes possible to measure polarization even with a narrow detector acceptance for the hyperons.
Note, that this is true only for global polarization measurement and the acceptance effects in case of narrow detector you discussed will be a real problem when measuring polarization (or spin alignment) with respect to production plane, where polarization axis and particle angle theta* are affected by the same detector effects.

1. I admit that I am completely baffled by the choice not to acceptance correct your physics results as presented in Figs. 3-8. If I take Fig 9 at face value, you know the acceptance corrections very well. Thus, I see no reason not to apply them. Furthermore, this appears to require only a very straightforward modification to the flow of the paper. Specifically, you could split the current Sect. II.C into two separate sections. The first half, "Acceptance effects", would be placed before the current "Results" section. That would then allow you to end it with a remark that, "All of the results in the following section have been corrected for the non-uniform detector acceptance." This would have the added benefit of letting you reduce the systematic uncertainty due to "Non uniform acceptance" from 20% to <~1%. The other half of the current Sect. II.C, "Systematic uncertainties", would appear after "Results" as it does now.
Obviously, the systematic uncertainty due to P_H(phi_H-psi_RP) dependence would remain. But that arises from incomplete knowledge of the physics, not from incomplete knowledge of (or corrections for) the acceptance.

The systematic uncertainty from P_H(phi_H-psi_RP) dependence are defined not only by values of term with P_H^(2) in the expansion (6), but they also ruled by the deviation from zero (the perfect detector case) of function A_2. Only non zero values of A_2 due to non-uniform acceptance leads to the contribution from higher harmonic term in the observable (9). It happens that in this case detector effects and physics contribution are linked with each other. This is the reason why we can not take into account all detector effects, although functions A_0 and A_2 are well defined from the data. In this view, providing a partially corrected points will be misleading since it can be understood that we completely correct our results on acceptance.

1. Crucial to the measurement is determining the direction of the normal to the reaction plane, L in the paper, and not just the reaction plane itself. There is a lot of discussion of systematic errors from the resolution of the reaction plane but little about a 180 deg direction ambiguity.
If I understand the paragraphs in the second column of pg 5 the reaction plane is determined from the FTPCs but the ambiguity in the direction is determined from the ZDCs. Ref. 10 to the STAR directed flow measurements is given to justify this. However the neither the reference nor the present paper have any results indicating the efficiency for determining the direction of L. Clearly the presence of a v1 defines the vector on average but it is not clear that every event has the direction of L clearly defined. Ref. 10 refers to a correlation between east and west event plane determinations. Do they always agree in the sign of L? Ref. 10 states that this does not work for the 0-10% bin. This would lead me to believe for the next bin it is less than 100% efficient. Correlations event by event could also be checked in different regions of eta.
My first thought would have been that one would not be able to resolve the ambiguity as to which direction the matter is spinning. A v1 clearly shows you do on average determine the direction. But unless you can determine it for every event one would need to define an efficiency for determining the direction that divides the lambda polarization results. It seems likely that this efficiency depends on centrality at least and maybe other kinematic variables.

Indeed we can not determine the exact direction in each event, and we do it only on statistical basis. What you call the efficiency for determining the direction we call event plane resolution. It is determined from correlations of two event plane defined in different FTPCs. According to a convention, the directed flow of neurons in the ZDC SMD is taken to be positive. From correlations between FTPC and ZDC SMD we find that directed flow in FTPC is negative for a positive pseudorapidity values. This fixes the direction of the orbital momentum.
We do not expect that the relative sign of directed flow in ZDC SMD and Forward TPC region depends on centrality.
In reference 10 it is only stated that results for directed flow measured with ZDC SMD event plane failed for most central collisions, this does not mean that it is not possible to measure directed flow and to define the event plane angle for charge particles measured with FTPCs in these region (see for example this slides, page 2: FTPCmultiplicity) The only uncertainty is in the "resolution" of the event plane angle, which is defined by the denominator in equation (4). This uncertainty depends on centrality and it increases towards most central collisions. This is discussed in Section IIC of the paper draft, page 10, right column, first paragraph).

1. I am confused by the phrase "(this can affect the estimated uncertainty)". My understanding all along had been that this higher possible feeddown in Au+Au was, indeed, included in the 30% systematic uncertainty on the extracted P_Lambda. The following calculation shows that, under the stated assumptions in the manuscript, a 30% feeddown would give rise to a 30% error in the polarization:
yield(Lambda from Sigma^0)/yield(direct Lambda) = 0.30
=> P_observed = (10/13) P_direct Lambda + (3/13)(-1/3) P_Sigma^0
under stated assumption P_Sigma^0 = P_direct Lambda, one gets
P_observed = (9/13) P_direct Lambda = 0.69 P_direct Lambda.
Thus, I thought the feeddown error estimate on measured polarization had been made allowing for ~30% Sigma^0 feeddown, twice the value measured in d+Au.

It looks like we calculate feed down uncertainty in a different way. Your estimate is obtained from this relation:
P_observed = alpha * P_lambda (in you case for 30% of feed down alpha = 0.69)
and in our calculations we get it from:
P_lambda = (1/alpha) P_observed (for 17% [Gene's proceedings: nucl-ex/0512018] feed down I get for 1/alpha = 1.29)
From these different numbers (0.69 and 1.2) we both occasionally conclude the same, i.e. the uncertainty of 30%. I think this is the source of our confusion.

1. It would be useful to clearly define what global polarization is early on (perhaps the first paragraph of the introduction). It's defined in Section II, but only after it is used quite a few times.

The global polarization is already defined in the first paragraph of the introduction as a transformation of the system orbital momentum L into the particles spin which leads to the polarization of secondary produced particles along the direction of L. We think that this definition is enough for the introduction section. We gave mathematical definition with equation (1) shortly in the beginning of section II.

2. I had a question about Eq. (4). Using a trig identity, this can be rewritten
P_Lambda = 8/(pi alpha) <[sin(phi_p)cos(Psi_EP) - cos(phi_p)sin(Psi_EP)]/R_EP >
I'm wondering about the application of a single R_EP to the entire ensemble of sin(phi_p)s. Is a single dilution factor adequate in the denominator here. If one were considering the errors on an event-by-event basis, one should plug Psi_EP+1sigma of R_EP, and psi_EP-1sigma of R_EP; this will occasionally change the sign of P_\Lambda determined for that event. Is there a mathematical relationship (or other argument) that a simple division of the result of the ensemble averaging is OK here.

We do not define resolution for each particular event and we do not correct on it for each event separately. In other words the correct equation we use is:
P_Lambda = 8/(pi alpha) <[sin(phi_p)cos(Psi_EP) - cos(phi_p)sin(Psi_EP)]> / < R_EP >
This equation assumes the symmetry between these two terms and the results for each terms can be used to check the consistency of the measurements. In fact this is one of the systematics and consistency checks done in the analysis.

The above expression for P_Lambda can be obtained as follows. We start from the equation:
< sin(psi-Psi_RP)> = < sin(phi- Psi_EP) cos(Psi_EP-Psi-RP) + cos(...) sin(...)>
We assume that there is no correlation between arguments of sin and cos in this expression and do average separately. Then the second term vanishes due to < sin(Psi_EP-Psi_RP) > = 0 and the first term gives < sin(phi-Psi_EP) > < cos(Psi_EP-Psi_RP >. the second term we call resolution: R_EP = < cos(Psi_EP-Psi_RP >. Dividing everything by this resolution we obtain equation for the polarization.

3. Also, it would be helpful to the reader if you gave a typical value for R_EP.

We are using scalar product technique, the resolution is the same order as the directed flow in FTPC pseudorapidity region. Such results can be found in reference [10].

4. I don't understand why there is a long discussion about the neutron detection in the ZDC, when it is only used to determine the sign of the polarization. It would be better to focus on the FTPC event plane determination (perhaps giving some representative numbers), and then have a brief discussion of the ZDC/SMD combo, focusing on what they are actually used for.

5. Figs. 3-8 might be more accessible if you combined the 2 p_T histograms (lambda + Lambda bar), 2 rapidity histograms, and two centrality histograms. It would simplify particle/antiparticle comparisons, and lead to shorter figure captions, with less repetition. Also, the fit results & chi^2/DOF would be more accessible if they were all put in a single table.

It is not clear if you propose to put lambda and anti-lambda results in one plot or you propose to combine statistics?
In general Lambda and anti-Lambda global polarization can be defined by different spin orbital transformation mechanisms and they can have a different magnitude, thus we do not like to combine these results in a single plot.
We are also reluctant to create a new table as it is not obvious it would clarify the presentation.

6. We need to explain exactly where the 0.02 limit given in the conclusions comes from. I couldn't figure out how the results were combined with the systematic errors to give a limit; this needs to be clearly laid out.

We modify the very end of the text before Conclusions in the paper draft Version 11:
"Taking all these possible correction factors into account, and that our measurements are consistent with zero with statistical error of about 0.01, our results suggest that the global Lambda and anti-Lambda polarizations are |P_{Lambda, anti-Lambda}| < 0:02 in magnitude."

7. Is it possible to expand the conclusions, to discuss what we really learn from this? We've ruled out one theory paper; what physics do we learn from this?

We did not just ruled out one of the theory paper. We are trying to set an upper limit for the global polarization, which appears to has an order of magnitude smaller value than those from the first estimate. It is hard to make any further physics conclusions.

write '30\%' instead of 'thirty percent'
Remove the excess "note that's and 'It was found in...' s
gamma_lambda needs to be defined.

Fixed in the paper draft Version 11.

#### Comments by Qinghua Xu and LBL journal club

1. You might consider to specify in the title of the paper that you study lambda and anti-lambda since there may be other global polarization effect as mentioned in the introduction.

This is the first measurement of the effect of global polarization. The orbital momentum transformation into the particles spin can reveals itself in other effects, such as spin alignment of vector mesons. This is the first measurement of the global polarization and, although we present only Lambda and anti-Lambda results, the measurement technique discussed in the paper is applicable not only for these particular particles but can be used to measure polarization of other hyperons, for example multistrange one. We think that in the current form the title of the paper is more appropriate in this case.

2. In Eq.1 you introduce the decay parameter but only on page 2 in the second column you give its value. - you can consider to move it closer to Eq.1.

In the beginning of Section II we discuss the hyperon global polarization, and this discussion is applicable not only for Lambda and anti-Lambda particles, but for other hyperons (for example multistrange hyperons). We provide the particular numbers for Lambda and anti-Lambda decay parameter later, when discussing the measurement details.

3. Might be good to mention the value of the event plane resolution used in Eq.4.

See answer to Spencer Klein comment #3 above.

4. You show global polarization versus pt, centrality and eta for lambda and anti-lambda as separate plots. Might be good to try to make one panel consists of six plots ( two columns one for lambda and other one for anti-lambda and three rows to show centrality, pt, eta dependence). You might want to add legend in plots for different energy and shorten the text in the captions.

In the current style of PRL with two columns it will be difficult to put these plots side by side because the scale of the plots will be too small. We also do not like to put legends in the figures, since it will clutter the plots, in particular Fig. 4 and 7.

5. You might consider removing the fit values from the caption since they are already in the text.

It was requested by GPC, but we do not mind to remove them from the captions.

6. You might consider moving the two paragraphs on feed down and spin precession effects on page 5 to the results section when you discuss systematics (close to the table).

We think it's better to discuss feed down effects together with the Lambda/anti-Lambda hyperon reconstruction technique. To indicate that these effects are contribute to systematic uncertainties of the measurement we refer here to section IIC (Acceptance effects and systematic uncertainties) and also provide our estimates in the summary Table I.

7. On page 10 you give the systematic error estimate on the direct flow contribution <=1% together with the reference [21]. In reference [21] below Fig.2 you say "...the flow contribution (8) appears to be less than 2x10-3. This is an order of magnitude smaller than the upper limit for the Lambda global polarization ..." indicating 10% effect. Could you explain how you get the 1% estimate?

From Figure 2 of the reference [21] you can see that 2x10^3 value is at maximum (essentially one point at low p_t). For most points the values are much smaller (of the order of 5*10^-4) what decrease the estimate of 10% by 75 per cent. Furthermore directed flow is also p_t dependant (unfortunately our STAR results for Lambda/anti-Lambda are consistent with zero so far). For charge particles it goes to zero at low p_t and saturates at about 2 GeV (see figure 4 in the reference [10]). The value of 10% for directed flow is also can be over estimated by a factor of 2. In this case it is difficult to get an exact estimate from just Figure 2 of the reference [21], and taking into account the written above we estimate it to be <1%.

### God Parent Committee for the paper on "Global polarization measurement in Au+Au collisions"

#### GPC members:

1. (Ernst Sichtermann) The uncertainty in polarization caused by feed-down contribution should presumably be presented as a possible offset instead of a percentage.

We report the systematic errors on feed down from multi strange hyperon assuming the same polarization as for direct lambdas. Therefore we report the relative systematic error in percents.

2. (Evan Finch) The systematic error from acceptance is not naturally a relative error, right?

Second line in equation (9) of the paper draft shows that both acceptance function A^(0,2) contribute together with polarization expansion coefficients P_H^(0,2). If polarization is zero (all P_H^(n) = 0), the acceptance effects in A^(0,2) are not contribute. This allows us to treat the deviation in A^(0,2) of 20% from perfect acceptance case as a relative uncertainty.

3. (Hal Spinka) In Figs. 5 and 8, there are points with centrality 0-5%. I would have naively thought that you couldn't define a reaction plane for these events (or maybe have a reaction plane with such large uncertainty as to be meaningless). In any case, I suspect that the polarization should vanish as the centrality (and p_T) goes to zero.

We do expect the polarization and anisotropic flow (which defines the event plane) are goes to zero only for b=0. Centrality region 0-5% corresponds to a relatively large range of impact parameters. Although the systematic uncertainties are larger, we still are able to reconstruct reaction plane angle and measure the polarization in this centrality region.

4. (Mark Heinz) The lowest p_T point on the figures 3 and 6. The efficiency for reconstructing the lowest p_T point - was this ever resolved?

Large error bars for lowest p_t points are showing the increase in uncertainty to reconstruct hyperons in this p_t region and we left these points in figures to indicate this effect.

5. (Evan Finch) The 0.15 sigma0/lambda ratio referred to is Gene's d+Au; for Au+Au the predictions are (as he notes) 2-3 times this big.

We estimate systematic errors from Sigma^0 feed-down based on results for dAu collisions and exactly this estimate is given in the paper draft. Since we do not have such a measurement for AuAu collisions, we only mention that it is possible for this uncertainty to be larger for AuAu collisions.

6. (Ernst Sichtermann) I do agree with Evan's comment that the repeated "Data points are not acceptance corrected" in the figure captions is not (longer) needed - it is clear enough from the text and can be viewed as just one source of systematic uncertainty. If you want to keep the message in the caption, I would probably phrase it as "The indicated uncertainties are statistical only. The systematic uncertainties include acceptance and other effects, and are estimated to be smaller as discussed in sec IIC."

Replaced in the paper draft Version 11

7. (Ernst Sichtermann) Reference [28], Y.J. Pei hep-ph/9703243 - have you considered F. Becattini and U. Heinz, ZPC 76 (1997) 269?

Added with corresponding discussions in the paper draft Version 11

8. (Ernst Sichtermann) Last, I would like to suggest some (other) minor rewording:
On page 5, "This estimate takes into account ... Au+Au collisions (this can affect the estimated uncertainty)." How about: This estimate takes into account the average polarization transfer from Σ0 to Λ, which we estimate to be -1/3 [26, 27], neglecting the possible effect from non-uniform acceptance of the daughter Λ. The production ratio of Σ0/Λ is measured to be 0.15 for d+Au collisions [29]. Our uncertainty estimate takes into account that it can be 2-3 times higher for Au+Au collisions.

1. (Hal Spinka)
PACS - you only have the PACS for collective flow. Perhaps include 24.70.+s for polarization, or maybe others for hyperon production? Sorry I didn't notice this before.
page 8, left col., line 7 and beyond paragraph. I make a suggestion for this paragraph, but think some improvement is still needed. -> "To check the reconstruction code, Monte Carlo simulations with sizable linear ... spectra have been performed. Both the sign and magnitude of the reconstructed polarization agreed with the input values (within statistical uncertainties?)."

23.20.En Angular distribution and correlation measurements 24.70.+s Polarization phenomena in reactions 25.75.-q Relativistic heavy-ion collisions 25.75.Ld Collective flow 14.20.Jn Hyperons 25.75.Gz Particle correlations 25.75.Dw Particle and resonance production
Paragraph discussing simulation results is replaced by what Hal suggested: "To check the reconstruction code, Monte Carlo simulations with sizable linear transverse momentum dependence of hyperon global polarization and hydrodynamic p_t^H spectra have been performed. Both the sign and magnitude of the reconstructed polarization agreed with the input values within statistical uncertainties."

2. (Steve Vidgor)
1) In a number of places the text refers to colors (red vs. black, etc.) in describing figures. Since the colors will likely not appear in the journal, choose different descriptions (e.g., darker vs. lighter shading in Fig. 2; open circles vs. filled squares in Figs. 3-8), and modify the text accordingly.
2) Since the discussion of feed-down comes quite a bit before the discussion of systematic errors, the reader is left hanging a bit at the end of the feed-down discussion, as to what will be made of these estimates. So I would suggest adding a sentence in the 2nd paragraph, left column on page 5:
"...decaying via strong interactions. THE EFFECT OF THESE FEED-DOWNS, ESTIMATED AS DESCRIBED BELOW, IS INCORPORATED IN OUR SYSTEMATIC ERRORS IN SEC. II C. Under the assumption..." 3) Under eq. (4), the sentence that begins "The direction of the system..." will be clearer if the final parenthetical "(event plane)" is removed, and the earlier description in that sentence modified to say: "...defined to be along the normal to the EVENT plane spanned by..."
4) I find the addition of the average values of trigonometric functions in eqs. (9-11) helps quite a bit in thinking about the acceptance non- uniformities. However, I find the added sentence "The stronger deviation from unity of A_0 at smaller p_t^H..." still not very illuminating. I would suggest a slightly longer description along the following lines -- I don't know if my explanation is correct, but it sounds plausible. If you have a better understanding of the behavior, please describe that in somewhat more detail than the present version.
"The deviation of this function from unity is small and it reflects losses of the daughter protons or pions from the STAR detector acceptance, primarily at small angles with respect to the beam direction. Proton losses and pion losses dominate in different regions of phase space, since in the detector frame the protons follow the parent Lambda direction much more closely than do the pions. When the Lambda momentum is itself near the acceptance edges ($|\eta| \approx 1$), then the primary losses come from protons falling even closer to the beam direction. This disfavoring of small $\theta_p*$ tends to increase $\overline{\sin \theta_p*}$, hence $A_0$, with respect to uniform acceptance. In contrast, when the Lambda is near mid- rapidity or at high $p_t^H$, the daughter protons are constrained to stay within the detector acceptance. Then the primary losses arise from forward-going daughter pions, preferentially correlated with large $\sin \theta_p*$, tending to reduce $A_0$ from unity. In any case, the corresponding corrections to the absolute value of the global polarization are estimated to be less than 20\% of the extracted polarization values."
5) Some grammatical corrections in the last paragraph on page 9: "The hyperon directed flow is defined as THE first-order coefficient in THE Fourier expansion of THE hyperon azimuthal..." Later: "...of the same order of magnitude as FOR charged particles ($\leq 10\%$), the effects of such interference HAVE been found...due to both the hyperon reconstruction procedure and IMPERFECTION of the reaction plane determination..."
6) The 0.02 limit appears for the first time in the conclusions. I would suggest foreshadowing this appearance at the very end of section IIC: "...less than a factor of 2--2.5. TAKING ALL THESE POSSIBLE CORRECTION FACTORS INTO ACCOUNT, OUR RESULTS SUGGEST THAT THE GLOBAL LAMBDA AND LABMDA-BAR POLARIZATIONS ARE <= 0.02 IN MAGNITUDE."

All figures are modified and only filled circles and oped squares symbols are used
This para added. The only changes were made are (see page 9, left column): protons -> protons (anti-protons) Lambda -> Lambda (Anti-Lambda)
"factor of 2" replaced by "factor of 2-2.5"

3. (Evan Finch)

I would take the statement "Data points are not acceptance corrected" out of the figure captions, It's clear now in the text and I think it will just confuse people who skim the text and look at the figures.
Left as is. This sentence was added as the result of previous GPC comments. We are ready to remove it if other GPC members agreed on this too.

The statement on strong feed down/string fragmentation model would benefit from mentioning what fraction of the indirect lambdas come from strong feed down (in the model) as opposed to sources you've already accounted for.
Left as is. This fraction of indirect hyperons from strong decay depends on both, our estimate of weak decay feed-downs and on the fraction of direct hyperons. Since the latter one is not measured with STAR, providing such a model dependent number without detailed explanation can potentially confuse the reader.

Is it possible to replace 'negligible' with a real number for the effect of spin precession? If you have a number at hand, it would be better to include it.
The relative uncertainty from this effect is < 0.1%. This number is added to the text and the Table 1.

In the acceptance section, I might replace "A() is a function to account for detector acceptance" with "A() is the fraction of lambdas which are accepted as a function of hyperon and daughter momentum".
Left as is. This statement will be difficult to understand together with the normalization of this function to unity. We can modified it as follows: "A() is a function to account for detector acceptance which is proportional to the fraction of accepted hyperons." In this form it is just a repetition of what we understand under detector acceptance.

And some minor grammar points... From the first line in page 3, I would remove "the". Also, take out the last occurence of "the" in that same paragraph.
Removed

Remove "in distance" from "at least 6cm in distance" on page 4. In that same paragraph, replace "choose" with "chose" to stay in the past tense.
Removed and replaced

Page 5, first column, I would add "in" to "Based on the results in [30].

# Global polarization of Anti-Lambda hyperon

#### Figures for the Anti-Lambda hyperon global polarization

Fig.1 Global polarization of Anti-Lambda hyperons as a function of Anti-Lambda transverse momentum.

Filled circles show the results for Au+Au collisions at sqrt{s_NN}=200 GeV (centrality region 20-70%) and open squares indicate the results for Au+Au collisions at sqrt{s_NN}=62 GeV (centrality region 0-80%).

Fig.2 Global polarization of Anti-Lambda hyperons as a function of Anti-Lambda pseudorapidity.

Filled circles show the results for Au+Au collisions at sqrt{s_NN}=200 GeV (centrality region 20-70%). A constant line fit to these data points yields P_Anti-Lambda = (1.8 +- 10.8)x10^{-3} with chi^2/ndf = 5.5/10. Open squares show the results for Au+Au collisions at sqrt{s_NN}=62 GeV (centrality region 0-80%). A constant line fit gives P_Anti-Lambda = (-17.6 +- 11.1)x10^{-3} with chi^2/ndf = 8.0/10.

Fig.3 Global polarization of Ant-Lambda hyperons as a function of centrality.

Filled circles show the results for Au+Au collisions at sqrt{s_NN}=200 GeV (centrality region 20-70%) and open squares indicate the results for Au+Au collisions at sqrt{s_NN}=62 GeV (centrality region 0-80%).

# Referee reports

1. First referee report and reply

# Spin alignment

### Global spin alignment in HIC

Main paper's web page

# Strange flow

#### V0 directed flow study in AuAu@62GeV

Lambda, Anti-Lambda, K0Short directed flow in AuAu@62GeV data was measured by two and three particle correlations (FTPC, ZDCSMD and TPC data were used). In the error range the obtained results are consistent with zero.

#### Non-flow contribution

By using the different charged sub-events the significant non-flow contribution from KSI decays were found, both in Lambda and Anti-Lambda elliptic flows. By correlating with event planes from different pseudo-rapidity region (TPC and FTPC event planes) the non-flow contribution to V0 elliptic flow has been estimate.

#### Barion to anti-barion asymmetry

The barion/anti-barion asymmetry investigated by studying the Lambda to anti-Lambda elliptic flow ratio. The barion to anti-barion elliptic flow ratio is found systematically different from 1 by few percents.

#### Talks and Publications

• The paper on "PID v2 in AuAu@62GeV" are currently in preparation.
It will include the results on V0 nonflow study and barion to anti-barion elliptic flow ratio results.

Supporting materials:

# Talks and posters

Talks and posters given at various conferences and workshops

# 2005 MCM

2005 Mindwest Critical Mass workshop, Toledo OH

Global polarization and parity violation in Au+Au collisions:

Slides: pdf or Open Office format

# 2005 QM

Quark Matter 2005 conference

Poster presentation on "Global polarization and parity violation study in Au+Au collisions:

# 2006 CIPANP

CIPANP2006 conference

Talk on "Acceptance effects in the hyperons global polarization measurement"

# 2006 QM

Quark Matter 2006 conference

Talk on "Centrality dependence of hyperon global polarization in Au+Au collisions at RHIC"

# 2006 SQM

Strangeness in Quark Matter (SQM2006) conference

Talk on "Global polarization measurement in Au + Au collisions":

# 2006 Xian

2006 Xian (China) workshop

Talk on "Anti-Lambda hyperon global polarization in Au+Au collisions at RHIC".

# STAR Physics Pages of Common Interest

## Approval arrangement

• Rongrong Ma: HF, JetCorr, SPIN
• Takafumi Niida: FCV, CF, LFSUPC
• Kenneth Barish: instrumental
• Xin Dong: software & computing
Occasionally, someone else on this list might sign off your work if the default person is not able to, due to travel, etc.

# Beam Use Request 2009

### Purpose

A collection of documents and guidance for the team writing five-year the Beam Use Request (BUR) begining Run 9.

### Guidance

Initial plan and guidance in an email from Nu (March 12). Attached was the final version of the previous BUR submitted in March 2007.

Further guidance from ALD Steve Vigdor in email forwarded by Nu (March 15). Attached documents with collider projections and 5 year strawman (image).

### PWG input

Physics working group specific documents

E-by-E - email from Aihong

E-struct - email from Lanny

HBT -

Heavy Flavour -

Hight-pt -

Spectra - email from Olga with summary and hypernews discussion.

Spin -

Strangeness - document[doc pdf] submitted end of January (needs updating).

UPC - Documents for heavy-ion (tex source) and pp2pp programmes.

...

# Editorial Board

## Editorial Board

The editorial board is comprised of the Physics Working Group conveners and all the GPC chairs. Its goal is to facilitate discussions and progress reports of proposed papers in the working groups and paper committees. The board's discussions and recommendation will serve the spokesperson to identify and resolve conflicts and issues in papers identified by the board's expertise.

### Meeting Schedule

• The meetings will replace on a regular (~12wks) basis the weekly PWGC meeting, which is currently scheduled on Fridays at 9:30am (EDT/EST).
• Video/audio conferencing details

### Past and Upcoming Meetings

1. GPC + PWGC Editorial Board Meeting April 29th, 2014
2. GPC + PWGC Editorial Board Meeting May 27th, 2014
3. GPC Editorial Board July 29, 2014
4. GPC Editorial Board August 26, 2014
5. GPC Editorial Board September 30, 2014
6. GPC Editorial Board October 28, 2014
7. GPC Editorial Board December 9, 2014
8. GPC Editorial Board Meeting February 3, 2015
9. GPC Editorial Board March 10, 2015
10. GPC Editorial Board April 14, 2015
11. GPC Editorial Board Meeting May 19, 2015
12. GPC Editorial Board Meeting July 14, 2015
13. GPC Editorial Board Meeting September 1, 2015
14. GPC Editorial Board Meeting October 20, 2015
15. GPC Editorial Board Meeting November 24, 2015
16. GPC Editorial Board Meeting January 19, 2016
17. GPC Editorial Board Meeting March 15, 2016
18. GPC Editorial Board Meeting May 3, 2016
19. GPC Editorial Board Meeting June 21, 2016
20. Editorial Board Meeting October 14, 2016
21. Editorial Board Meeting January 20, 2017
22. Editorial Board Meeting April 7, 2017
23. Editorial Board Meeting September 1, 2017
24. Editorial Board Meeting January 12, 2018
25. Editorial Board Meeting April 20, 2018
26. Editorial Board Meeting September 21, 2018
27. Editorial Board Meeting January 11, 2019
28. Editorial Board Meeting July 5, 2019
29. Editorial Board Meeting November 22, 2019
30. Editorial board meeting June 26, 2020
31. Editorial board meeting November 6, 2020
32. Editorial board meeting March 26, 2021

# HEPdata info and instructions

### Basic information/Introduction

Nowadays it is more and more important to have our published data readily available for the outside world. The "industry-wide" format for that is HEPData, hence STAR management has decided to give "shift-like" credit for uploading papers to HEPData. On this webpage we describe the details of this coordinated effort of STAR to have all our public data available on HEPData.
• Papers before GPC #250 should be uploaded by "shifters". At least ~20 figures (numbered figures from the paper that have data in the data.html file on drupal; i.e. one figure with many subfigures or many actual table columns is still counted as one figure for this purpose) are worth one shift credit (i.e. equivalent of doing a data taking shift of ~56 hours), that could be for example 2 medium sized PRC papers, 1 very long PRC paper, or a few PRL papers, or a combination of these. No fractional credit is given, and papers shall be finished by one shifter; so shifters should try to select papers with 20 figures altogether, or maybe slightly more.
and shifters are expected to finish uploading paper data within the given week indicated in the signup table; review shall also happen within that week.
• People interested in signing up for HEPData shifts should consult both the signup sheet and the
www.star.bnl.gov/protected/common/GPCs/gpc-committees.xml
table to see which papers are available (and also check below which papers are in progress, i.e. "taken" already).
• A merged list is also linked here:
where papers are marked "selected" or "done" (and some other markings are also possible); please only select papers where no such comment is given in the "HEPdata status" column.
• A reviewer should also be named, it could be someone from the shifter's group, e.g. the team leader/supervisor/experienced colleague. The main task for the reviewer is to check if the upload was done correctly, no major mistakes were made, or mistakes of the original data upload (such as typos) are corrected.
• Shifters should contact Mate Csanad (minimally a few days before their shift) to discuss and settle which papers will be done in the given shift. This decision has to be made before the week of the shift, so that actual work can start and finish during the shift week.
• Papers with the most citations (see list linked in the "Resources" section) should be chosen first, since these are most likely to be needed by the community, but other than that, people are free to choose.
• To start the uploads, the name and email (the one used at hepdata.net) of both the uploader and the reviewer is needed.
• After review is done, a notification should be sent to Frank Geurts and Mate Csanad, so that final approval and publication of the HEPdata record can be done. After this is done, shifters are kindly asked to send the public HEPdata link for each completed paper (with GPC number) so that this can be recorded in the paper list.
• Credit will be given once the upload is done and approved; a final email to Mate Csanad with the public HEPdata link(s) and corresponding GPC number(s) is needed to mark the shift as done.
• Credits will be counted at the end of the given data taking period.
• Shifts finished before Nov 13 count towards Run 20, later ones will count towards Run 21, if finished before the end of Run 21. Institutional credit is added to the database at that point.
Useful links are given below, and of course feel free to ask on the Mattermost channel or in email.

• Check other submissions, e.g. a great example is www.hepdata.net/record/ins1771348
• All data tables given on the STAR publication webpage (data.html file) should be uploaded, with proper descriptions.
• Double check if any mistake has been made on the publication webpage, e.g. comparing to the publication. Clear mistakes should be corrected, otherwise the data.html file should be followed (as the official public data record of the given paper).
• Make sure the plot is understandable in HEPData, i.e. energy, collision system, particle type etc. are given in the appropriate labels or tags.
• Follow the PDG rules for significant digits, also summarized here: drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/pwg/common/policies/significant-digits-hepdata-table
• {description: Webpage with all figures, location: 'https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/publications/...'} (adding this one will provide some additional pointers to the page on which we summarize arXiv, journal, as well as individual pictures)
• {description: arXiv, location: 'http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:...'}
• An “Image file” and a “Thumbnail image file” shoud be given for all figures. Those fields really give a nice connection to the relevant figure from the paper. (To be obtained from STAR’s png plots are on the paper website or directly cropped from the paper.) In the submission.yaml file you can add these through these lines:
--
- {description: Image file, location: Fig2.png}
- {description: Thumbnail image file, location: thumb_Fig2.png}
Data_file: figure_2.yaml

And here is a simple unix command to create thumbnails from all the image files downloaded from the publication webpage:
convert "*.png[200x]" -set filename:base "%[basename]" "thumb_%[filename:base].png"
• The review and sign-off should be done by the appointed reviewer.
• Once everything is in place, send public HEPData link (the one with 'ins' in it), arXiv/INSPIRE link and STAR data website for final approval.

### Dashboard

(last update: May 2020)
HEPdata Submission Dashboard
GPC ID title date submitter reviewer status
16 Centrality Dependence of High $p_T$ Hadron Suppression in Au + Au Collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 130 GeV August 2020 Christal Martin (UTK) Frank Geurts 588808
17 Disappearance of back-to-back high pT hadron correlations in central Au+Au collisions at sqrt(sNN)=200GeV Feb.24, 2020 Junlin Wu (IMP) Frank Geurts
56 Azimuthal anisotropy in Au+Au collisions at s(NN)**(1/2) = 200-GeV Feb.16, 2020 Mate Csanad (Eotvos) Frank Geurts
126 Identified particle production, azimuthal anisotropy, and interferometry measurements in Au+Au collisions at s(NN)**(1/2) = 9.2- GeV Feb.16, 2020 Mate Csanad (Eotvos) Frank Geurts 831944
154 Di-electron spectrum at mid-rapidity in $p+p$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 200$ GeV September 2020 ? Frank Geurts in progress
176 Strangeness Enhancement in Cu+Cu and Au+Au \sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200 GeV Collisions August 2020 Christal Martin (UTK) Frank Geurts 918779
183 Systematic measurements of dielectron production in 200 GeV Au+Au collisions at the STAR experiment August 2020 Jaanita Mehrani (Rice) Frank Geurts 1275614
207 Bulk Properties of the Medium Produced in Relativistic Heavy-Ion Collisions from the Beam Energy Scan Program Feb.23,2017
Malena Fassnacht/Nick Coupey (Rice)
Frank Geurts  1510593
224  Measurement of D0 azimuthal anisotropy at mid-rapidity in Au+Au collisions at sqrt(SNN)=200GeV  April 26, 2017  Xin Dong  Bedanga Mohanty

227 Measurements of Dielectron Production in Au+Au Collisions at sqrt(sNN)= 27, 39, and 62.4 GeV from the STAR Experiment September 2020 Yiding Han (Rice) Frank Geurts in progress
230 Beam Energy Dependence of Jet-Quenching Effects in Au+Au Collisions at Sept.11, 2018 Jaanita Mehrani (Rice) Frank Geurts  1609067
233  Beam-Energy Dependence of Directed Flow of Lambda, anti-Lambda, K+/-, Short, and phi in Au+Au collisions August 30, 2017   Prashanth Shanmuganathan  Zhenyu Ye
237  Strange hadron production in Au+Au collisions at sort(sNN)=7.7, 11.5, 19.6, 27, and 39GeV  April 30, 2020 Xianglei Zhu  Rongrong Ma   1378002
247  J/Psi production cross section and its dependence on charged-particle multiplicity in p+p collisions at sqrt(s)=200GeV Sept. 21, 2018    Zhenyu Ye Jaro Bielcik  1672453
249 Low pT e+e- pair production in Au+Au collisions at sqrt(sNN)=200GeV and U+U collisions at sort(sNN)=193GeV Sept.10, 2018 Jaanita Mehrani (Rice) Frank Geurts  1676541
253 Centrality and transverse momentum dependence of D0-meson production at mid-rapidity in Au+Au collisions at sqrt(sNN) = 200 GeV August 2020 Christal Martin (UTK) Frank Geurts in progress
262  Observation of excess J/Psi yield at very low transverse momenta in Au+AU collisions at sqrt(sNN)=200GeV and U+U collisions at sqrt(sNN)=193GeV  Sept. 6, 2019 Wangmei Zha  Jaro Bielcik
274  Measurement of Groomed Jet Substructure Observables in pp Collisions at sqrt(s)=200GeV with STAR March 19, 2020   Raghav Kunnawalkam Elayavalli  Rongrong Ma 1783875
277 Probing Extreme Electromagnetic Fields with the Breit-Wheeler Process Feb. 12, 2020 Daniel Brandenburg Frank Geurts
281  Observation of enhancement of charmed baryon-to-meson ratio in Au+Au collisions at sqrt(sNN)=200GeV April 17, 2020   Sooraj Radhakrishnan  Wei Xie  1762441
290  Measurement of the central exclusive production of charged particle pairs in proton-proton collisions at sort(s)=200GeV with the STAR detector at RHIC April 287, 2020  Rafal Sikora  Xin Dong  1792394
GPC ID title date submitter reviewer status/inspireid (when completed)
GPC ID title date submitter reviewer status/inspireid (when completed)
GPC ID title date submitter reviewer status/inspireid (when completed)
GPC ID title date submitter reviewer status/inspireid (when completed)
GPC ID title date submitter reviewer status/inspireid (when completed)
GPC ID title date submitter reviewer status/inspireid (when completed)

# STAR Physics Working Group Conveners

### Correlations and Fluctuations

• Hanna Zbroszczyk (hanna.zbroszczyk@pw.edu.pl)
• Xiaofeng Luo (xfluo@mail.ccnu.edu.cn)

### Flow, Chirality and Vorticity

• Prithwish Tribedy (ptribedy@bnl.gov)
• ShinIchi Esumi (esumi.shinichi.gn@u.tsukuba.ac.jp)
• Jiangyong Jia (jiangyong.jia@stonybrook.edu)

### Heavy Flavor

• Barbara Trzeciak (barbara.trzeciak@gmail.com)
• Yi Yang (yiyang@ncku.edu.tw)

### Jet-like Correlations

• Raghav Elayavalli (kunnawalkamraghav@gmail.com)
• Saehanseul Oh (hanseul@rcf.rhic.bnl.gov)

### Light Flavor Spectra & Ultra-Peripheral Collisions

• Md. Nasim (nasim@iiserbpr.ac.in)
• Daniel Brandenburg (jbrandenburg@bnl.gov)
• Daniel Cebra (cebra@physics.ucdavis.edu)

### Spin

• Qinghua Xu (xuqh@email.sdu.edu.cn)
• Maria Zurek (mariakzurek@lbl.gov)
• Matt Posik (mposik1983@gmail.com)

#### Physics Analysis Coordinators

• Rongrong Ma (marr@bnl.gov)
• Takafumi Niida (fv0309@wayne.edu)

# Past Physics Working Group Conveners

(note: this list does not list conveners before 2009)

### Correlations and Fluctuations

• Hanna Zbroszczyk (Sep. 4, 2020 - )
• Xiaofeng Luo (Sep. 4, 2020 - )

### Flow, Chirality and Vorticity

• Prithwish Tribedy (Sep. 4, 2020 - )
• ShinIchi Esumi (Sep. 4, 2020 - )
• Jianyong Jia (Sep. 4, 2020 - )

### Heavy Flavor

• Barbara Trzeciak (Sep. 4, 2020 - )
• Yi Yang (Dec.19, 2019 - )
• Sooraj Radhakrishnan (Dec.6, 2018 - )
• Zebo Tang (Sept. 12, 2017 - Sep. 4, 2020)
• Petr Chaloupka (Sept.13, 2017 - Dec.19, 2019)
• Rongrong Ma (Feb.15, 2016 - Dec.5, 2018)
• Zhenyu Ye (March 30, 2014 - July 1, 2017 )
• Hao Qiu (May 12, 2015 - March 7, 2016)
• Daniel Kikola (Dec.31, 2012 - Feb.14, 2016)
• Yifei Zhang (March 15, 2012 - Sept.4, 2014)
• Wei Xie (Sep.30, 2011 - March 30, 2014)
• Xin Dong (Jan.20, 2009 - Sep.30, 2011)
• Gang Wang (Sep.21, 2009 - March 15, 2012)
• Jaroslav Bielcik (Sept.21, 2009 - Dec.31, 2012)

### Jet-like Correlations

• Raghav Elayavalli (June 6, 2019 -)
• Saehanseul Oh (Nov. 13, 2018 - )
• Kolja Kauder (July 12, 2016 - July 1, 2019)
• Li Yi (Apr. 13, 2017 - Nov. 12, 2018)
• Alex Schmah (Feb.22, 2015 - April 12, 2017)
• Saskia Mioduszewski (July 12, 2011 - July 11, 2016)
• Joern Putschke (June 6, 2009 - Oct. 29, 2012)
• Fuqiang Wang (Oct.11, 2008 - Feb.22, 2015)

### Spin/Cold-QCD

• Qinghua Xu (Dec. 2, 2020 - )
• Maria Zurek (Dec. 2, 2020 - )
• Matt Posik (Sept. 9, 2019 - )
• Carl Gagliardi (Sept. 1, 2017 - Dec. 2, 2020)
• Oleg Eyser (Nov. 9, 2016 - Sept. 8, 2019)
• Jim Drachenberg (June 3, 2014 - July 1, 2017)
• Anselm Vossen (July 16, 2013 - Nov. 9, 2016)
• Pibero Djowotho (Oct.29, 2012 - June 30, 2013)
• Renee Fatemi (March 23, 2011 - June 3, 2014)
• Stephen Trentalange (March 23, 2010 - Oct.29, 2012)

### Light Flavor Spectra (merged w/ UPC in Aug.'16)

• Bingchu Huang (July 8, 2014 - Aug.'16 )
• Lokesh Kumar (Aug. 22, 2011 - July 2016 )
• Xianglei Zhu (March 15, 2012 - July 8, 2014)
• Frank Geurts (Nov.24, 2010 - March 28, 2014)
• Anthony Timmins (Dec.21, 2009 - March 15, 2012)
• Lijuan Ruan (Oct.11, 2008 - Aug. 22, 2011)

Bulk Correlations (splitt into FCV and CF working groups)

### Xiaofeng Luo (July 16, 2018 - Sep. 4, 2020) ShinIchi Esumi (Oct. 18, 2017 - Sep. 4, 2020) Jianyong Jia (Sept. 1, 2017 - Sep. 4, 2020) Bill Llope (June 16, 2015 - July 16, 2018) Nu Xu (Oct.1, 2014 - Oct. 18, 2017) Grigory Nigmatkulov (July 12, 2016 - July 1, 2017) Daniel McDonald (Oct. 1, 2014 - June 16, 2015) Hui Wang (May 25, 2013 - April 2015) Shusu Shi (Aug. 15, 2011 - Oct.11, 2014) Daniel Cebra (Feb. 11, 2011 - Dec.2, 2013) Hiroshi Masui (Nov. 1, 2010 - May 25, 2013) Paul Sorenson (Oct.11, 2008 - Aug.15, 2011) Ultra-Peripheral Collisions (merged w/ LFS in Aug.'16)

• Wlodek Guryn (Jan. 20, 2009 - Aug.'16 )
• Janet Seger (Jan. 20, 2011 - Aug.'16)

### Physics Analysis Coordination

• Rongrong Ma and Takafumi Niida (deputy) (May 1, 2020 - )
• Zhenyu Ye and Grigory Nigmatkulov (deputy)  (July 2017 - April 30, 2020)
• Frank Geurts and Gang Wang (deputy) (April 2014 - July 2017)
• Xin Dong (2012-2014)
• Bedanga Mohanty (2010-2012)
• Jamie Dunlop

# PWG Disk Quota Leases

More information can be found at the following STAR Note: PSN0611 : committee Report on RCF User Disk Space Distribution
PWG begin date end date request
size (TB)
used
size (TB)
subdir request details
Spin 2015-01-06 2015-07-26 3   spin01 2009 Jet Trees
Spin 2015-01-06 2015-07-26 8.5   spin02 2011 Jet Trees
HF 2015-02-06 2015-08-24 1.5   hf01 Run-13 pp500 MTD triggers
LFS 2015-02-27 2015-09-14 9   lfs01 Run-14 (14.5GeV) Fixed Target data
HF 2015-03-26 2019-08-08 30   hf02 Run-14 AuAu200 picoDSTs
TFG 2015-09-26 2015-11-31 10   tfg Data production for Sti+CA.pdf
Spin 2016-03-31 2016-05-31 5   spin03 starpwgc/4158.html
-all- 2016-04-01 2016-06-01 1   run15 starpwgc/4156/1/1/1.html
HF 2016-07-08 2017-01-24 13 17.7 hf04 Lepton analysis tree request of PWG disk Space
Spin 2016-10-31 2017-12-31 5.5 1.7 spin04 2013 jet trees
JetCorr 2017-03-23 2017-09-23 4   jetcorr01 Run 15 test production (with and without HFT)
Spin 2017-08-25 2017-10-24 7   spin05 2012 Jet Trees
JetCorr 2017-09-27 2018-12-26 0.75 0.5 jetcorr02 Run14 AuAu Jet trees from st_WB data stream
Spin 2017-11-14 2017-12-15 40   spin06 2012 MuDst Temporary Restoration for JetTree Production
HF 2018-06-10 2018-09-10 50   hf05 2016 AuAu200 picoDst with covariant matrix for KFParticle
JetCorr 2018-09-26 2019-09-25 2.5 0.0001 jetcorr03 2014 AuAu200 st_WB picoDst
Spin 2019-01-10 2019-06-30 5 4.0 spin07 2012 jet trees
TFG 2019-06-12 2019-12-12 30 30 tfg02 2019 picoDst from online HLT data production (NO Physics Results)
HF 2019-07-01 2019-12-31 13 12 hf06 2016 AuAu200 FMS miniTree
LFSUPC 2019-07-11 2019-12-31 6 3.6 upc01 2015 picoDst for UPC data
LFSUPC 2019-07-16 2019-12-31 5 3.0 upc02 2017 picoDst for Roman Pot data
BulkCorr 2019-09-17 2022-3-16 15+12 27 bulkcorr01 2018 AFVD events for CME blind analyses
Spin 2020-01-23 2020-3-23 2 9.0 spin08 2015 Jet ALL embedding private production
Spin 2020-12-18 2021-06-18 4 0.35 spin09 2017 FMS calibration and analysis
TF: tracking 2021-03-16 2021-06-16 10 9.4 TF_TrkEff Tracking efficiency task force: 7.7 GeV data produced by TFG group

# Centrality approval procedure

Centrality approval procedure
- Present to the relevant PWG and get approval
- Present at the centrality meeting, and get approved by the centrality coordinator
- Inform the convener list (1 week for comments)
- Commit parameters to STAR library
- Make announcement to the whole collaboration

# Derived plots from published data

This page documents the proposed procedure for approving derived plots based on published data. This procedure only applies to the cases where internal information that is not available in the published paper, such as correlations between systematic uncertainties, is used.
• Prepare derived plots with captions, along with a brief note on how these plots are generated, e.g. how are the systematic uncertainties treated
• Present the plots to relevant PWG for approval, including both the figures, physics message and the note
• Send the derived plots in eps format to PAC. The file names should contain the word "DERIVED"
• Upload the brief note to the Drupal page where the regular analysis note for the published paper resides

# Guidances for STAR presentations

This blog documents guidances, including requirements and suggestions, for STAR presentations.

### Title page

The presenter is required to add the following:
• Speaker's name, and “on behalf of the STAR collaboration” or “for the STAR collaboration”
• Speaker's institution name and/or logo
• DOE logo: if your institution is fully funded by DOE, please add "Supported by" above the DOE logo. Otherwise, please add "Supported in part by". Logos from other funding agencies are encouraged to be added to as well
• STAR logo (some DOE & STAR examples can be found here)
• Conference name/logo, date and location
This also applies to posters.

### Tips for slides

Here are more tips for preparing your slides:
• Have consistent capitalization of your slide’s titles. We don’t care if its just the first word, or every word, just keep it consistent
• You can use any font you like, but try and stick to at most 2 for the presentation, but the font size should not be less the 20pt
• All plots need axis labels with units and STAR or STAR preliminary on them.  Include a label giving the collision system and energy. Avoid excessive empty space in your figures or around their edges. Reduce the ranges of your axes as much as reasonably possible
• Don’t use yellow or light green - it may look good on your screen but they do not project
• Please try to use both color, symbol shape and filled/hollow symbols on your graphs. As an example, while for many of us red/blue is easily distinguishable some people are color blind and cannot differentiate - using different marker symbols in addition mean all the audience can distinguish your different data points.
• If you have more than 3 plots on a slide you have too many and no-one will be able to take in all the information
• Have one, and only one, intended take-away message for each slide. It should be highlighted in some fashion from the rest of the text on the slide. I should be able to walk into the room, take one look at a slide and be able to tell someone immediately what the message of the slide is. If you have more then one key message, your slide is too busy and the audience won’t follow
• Try to make figures as large as possible. The auditoriums are often large and we all sit at the back and many have bad eyesight
• Try and use bullets not whole sentences. You want the audience listening to you, not desperately trying to read all the text on your slide. The slides are meant to support the narration of the speaker, not make the speaker superfluous
• If you have more than 1 slide per minute you have WAY to many! Your audience are likely seeing your results for the first time, you need to give them time to digest what’s plotted - what the axes are etc - before they can digest what the scientific message of the data is
• Check that figure axis labels don’t extend off of the canvas (this often happen for superscript and subscripts) and that the text doesn’t run into the axis tick marks. Use high quality figures, not low resolution bitmaps

### Tips for posters

Here are more tips for preparing your poster:
• If you include your abstract on your poster its OK to change it a little, to reflect what you are actually going to show, rather than what you hoped to show several months back. If you make a major change to the abstract please make sure that your PWG convener is aware that you have done this. The same goes for the poster title, its OK to tweak it a little.
• Have consistent capitalization of your poster title and section headings. We don’t care if its just the first word, or every word, just keep it consistent
• Don’t overcrowd your poster with text and figures. People want to browse all the posters and won’t be willing to stand there and read what amounts to a long research paper. You should try and convey one or two key messages.
• You can use any font you like, but try and stick to at most 2 for the poster. The fonts need to be large. A good rule of thumb is if you print it out on A4/US letter size paper you should be able to read it easily. If you can’t when printed out poster size you won’t be able to read it from a few feet away, which is bad. You are expecting a crowd around you poster so you need to be able to read it from a distance
• All plots need axis labels with units and STAR or STAR preliminary on them.  Include a label giving the collision system and energy. Avoid excessive empty space in your figures or around their edges. Reduce the ranges of your axes as much as reasonably possible.
• Don’t use yellow or light green - it may look good on your screen but they does not print very well
• Please try to use both color, symbol shape and filled/hollow symbols on your graphs. As an example, while for many of us red/blue is easily distinguishable some people are color blind and cannot differentiate - using different marker symbols in addition mean all the audience can distinguish your different data points.
• Have one, and only one, intended take-away message for each section fo your poster. It should be highlighted in some fashion from the rest of the text on the slide. I should be able to walk up to poster, take a quick look and be able to tell someone immediately what the key messages are.
• Try to make figures as large as possible - you can frequently convey a lot more with a figure than you can with a wall of text.
• Try and use bullets not whole sentences. You want to use the poster to encourage people to discuss your results with you.
• Check that figure axis labels don’t extend off of the canvas (this often happen for superscript and subscripts) and that the text doesn’t run into the axis tick marks. Use high quality figures, not low resolution bitmaps. Remember this is going to be printed out much larger than usual

# PWGC preview requirements

Required documents
1)
A webpage containing
• PA list
• target journal
• paper title
• abstract
• figures with major if not all systematic uncertainties and captions
• tables, if any, with captions
• conclusions including physics messages
• links to relevant PWG presentations for reference
2)
A presentation to the PWGC panel: recommended template

3) Analysis note: optional

# Preliminary plots

-The STAR Preliminary label is not needed for plots from which no one can deduce physics messages.

PWGC meeting discussion

# Significant digits for HepData table

- Choose the smaller one between statistical and systematic uncertainties when both are reported. Otherwise, use the single error reported.

- Follow PDG practice: "The basic rule states that if the three highest order digits of the error lie between 100 and 354, we round to two significant digits. If they lie between 355 and 949, we round to one significant digit. Finally, if they lie between 950 and 999, we round up to 1000 and keep two significant digits. In all cases, the central values is given a precision the matches that of the error"
• PRD 98 (2018) 030001, Introduction 5.3
- Examples:
• 0.279008 +/- 0.0123261 +/- 0.000766099 -> 0.2790 +/- 0.012 +/- 0.0008  (significant digits determined based on 0.000766099)
• 0.279008 +/- 0.0123261 +/- 0.0766099     -> 0.279 +/- 0.012 +/- 0.08  (significant digits determined based on 0.0123261)
- An example code to format the input values, following PDG suggestions, can be found here: formatter.zip
• The formatting code is updated on Mar. 15th 2021, based on improvement introduced by Patrick John Steffanic and Christine Nattrass
• Instructions are included in the zip file
• Github link for the source file: https://github.com/takahito-todoroki/hepdata/tree/master/scripts
-Special cases of including more significant digits than recommended will be treated on a case-by-case basis by GPC chair and PAC.

# Production priorties

(Weekly update from production team)

1. Data production
(1) Run18 Isobar final production
- done
(2) BES-II: Run19 19.6 COL > Run19 14.6 COL > Run20 31.2 FXT (7.7) - pending TPC misalignment calibration
(3) Run17 pp510 st_W > st_physics - st_W done, st_physics ongoing
(4) Run19 BES-II: 4.59 FXT>200 COL > 31.2 FXT (7.7)
(5) Run17 pp510 st_dimuon
using SL20a or beyond, requested by HF- vertex selection based on MTD matching developed. Will need new library before start.
(5) Run17 pp510 st_rp to apply latest space charge correction - ongoing
(6) Run20 BES-II: 19.5 FXT (6.2) > 13.5 FXT (5.2) > 9.8 FXT (4.5) > (Run19+20) 7.3 FXT (3.9) > 5.75 FXT (3.5) > 9.2 COL > 11.5 COL > 26.5 FXT (7.2)
(7) Run05 Cu+Cueast-west asymmetry in produced data

2. MuDst to picoDst conversion

(1) Run14 AuAu 200 GeV st_physicsP18ih-MuDst using SL20a or beyond, requested by JetCorr - done
mtdMatch, y2014a, picoDst,PicoVtxMode:PicoVtxVpdOrDefault, TpcVpdVzDiffCut:3, PicoCovMtxMode:PicoCovMtxWrite, PicoBEmcSmdMode:PicoBEmcSmdWrite
(2) pp200_production_2012, P12id-MuDst using SL20b or beyond, requested by JetCorr
PicoVtxMode:PicoVtxVpdOrDefault, TpcVpdVzDiffCut:6, PicoCovMtxMode:PicoCovMtxWrite, PicoBEmcSmdMode:PicoBEmcSmdWrite
(3) 2010 AuAu200_production, UU_production_2012:
picoDst PicoVtxMode:PicoVtxDefault PicoCovMtxMode:PicoCovMtxWrite PicoBEmcSmdMode:PicoBEmcSmdWrite
(4) BES-I data:
Tentative chain opinion:
picoDst PicoVtxMode:PicoVtxDefault PicoCovMtxMode:PicoCovMtxWrite PicoBEmcSmdMode:PicoBEmcSmdWrite
(5) Run14 AuAu 200 GeV st_mtd, requested by HF
mtdMatch, y2014a, PicoVtxMode:PicoVtxVpdOrDefault, TpcVpdVzDiffCut:3, PicoCovMtxMode:PicoCovMtxSkip

New request:

3. PicoDst restoration (MuDst is specified) (Progress report)
(1) Isobar production, P20ic_SL20c, st_physics
- done
(2) pp500_production_2013, P14ia, st_physics and st_physics_adc, MuDst - done
- Run list: /star/u/agibson/2013Pi0s/2020-December-Run13PeriodWishList.txt
(3) cuProductionMinBias P17ii SL18b
- done
(4) AuAu_200_production_2016, st_physics, P16ij_SL20c
(5) AuAu200_production2_2016, st_sst, st_nosst, P16ij_SL19c
(6) production_pp200long_2015, production_pp200long2_2015, production_pp200trans_2015, st_mtd, P16id_SL19c
(7) AuAu_200_production_2014, AuAu_200_production_low/mid/high_2014, AuAu_200_production_2016, AuAu200_production2_2016, st_upc, P16id (2014) and P17if (2016) MuDst
(8) dAu200_production_2016, st_physics, st_fms, P17id, 17133066-17141005, MuDst - st_fms done
(9) production_pp200trans_2015, st_ssdmb, P16id_SL19c
(10) AuAu_200_production_2016, st_mtd, P16ij_SL16j

cuAu_production_2012 P19ic SL19c -
problem found with production. No need to restore now.

New request:

4. Embedding
Large datasets:
20192604 LFSUPC strangeness in Run18 AuAu 27 GeV: Lambda, anti-Lambda and Omega flat production done. Producing exponential sample on Cori
20201501 SPIN additional Run12 pp 500 GeV embedding: PA working on the setup
20215301 SPIN Run15 pp200 transverse Production done by PWG, now under review

Small datasets:

20201503 JetCorr pi/K/p in Run18 Isobar 200 GeV
20180201 LFSUPC, He3 in AuAu 39 GeV reproduction: ticket #2561. Improvement seen in >= SL19b
20185201

LFSUPC
rho0, f0, f2, omega, eta Run17 AuAu 54.4 GeV Not started
20192604 LFSUPC strangeness in Run18 AuAu 27 GeV - Under production
20193802
BulkCorr neutral and charged K* in Run18 AuAu 27 GeV - Test sample produced
20193803 BulkCorr neutral and charged K* in Run14 AuAu 200 GeV
Not started
20201901-04 HF
Jpsi and Psi(2S) (Pythia8) in Run17 pp510 st_zerobias: on hold until the data is reproduced with correct chain options
20202801, LFSUPC pi/k/p in Run18 AuAu 3.0 GeV (FXT) - second full sample produced under SL19e. nHits mismatch under investigation
20202802, LFSUPC p/d/t/he3 in Run18 AuAu 3.0 GeV (FXT) - second full sample produced under SL19e
20202803, LFSUPC he3 in Run18 AuAu 27 GeV
Not started
20202804, LFSUPC he3/antihe3 in Run17 AuAu 54 GeV
Not started
20203001, BulkCorr p/pbar in Run12 pp 200 GeV
Test sample produced
20203002, LFSUPC Ks/Lambda/AntiLambda in Run14 AuAu200 GeV HFT
Under preparation
20203003, LFSUPC pentaquark in Run14 AuAu 200 GeV HFT
Under preparation
20203005-09, LFSUPC H3L/H4L/Lambda in Run18 AuAu 3.0 GeV (FXT)
- Test sample produced
20203010, LFSUPC pi/k/p in Run18 AuAu 27 GeV
Done
20203701, LFSUPC H3L 3-body decay in Run18 AuAu 3.0 GeV (FXT) Done
20203801-04, LFSUPC H3L/H4L/Lambda in Run18 AuAu 7.2 GeV (FXT) Not started
20210201, LFSUPC K0S in Run18 AuAu 3.0 GeV (FXT)

Know issues:

(1) 2016-2018 data-embedding disagreement in nHit.
BulkCorr: Run17 AuAu54 proton re-produced with new TpcRs, better in 0-5% but overcorrect in other centrality bins. Overall effect on proton tracking efficiency less than a couple%

# STAR Preliminary Results Archive

It is recommended that the PAs for each analysis set up a drupal webpage, and upload the approved preliminary plots. The PWGs will set up a drupal webpage with links to the drupal webpages from individual analysis.

# Tracking Efficiency Uncertainty

Tracking efficiency uncertainty drupal page

# Tuning PYTHIA8

Organization

=========================
Chair: Matthew Kelsey (mkelseyATwayne.edu)
Members: Raghav Kunnawalkam Elayavalli, Hanseul Oh, Yuanjing Ji, Jan Vanek, Qian Yang, Zilong Chang

Ex Officio: Jason Webb

Charge
=========================
Study PYTHIA8 event generator to attempt to determine a tune that better matches available RHIC data. Produce a writeup documenting these studies, results, and a "STAR tune" set of parameters. An initial report is expected in 3-6 months, and the final document in 6-12 month

Mailing list
=========================
A dedicated mailing list is created: star-tf-tunepy-l@lists.bnl.gov
Subscription page:

Meetings (Wed. @ 3 PM BNL Time)
=========================

11/06/2020:
Zilong Chang: STAR PYTHIA6 Tune
drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/starpythia6.pdf
Raghav Elayavalli: Quick Look at PYTHIA 8 Tune
drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/pythia8_tune_quick_look_v0_0.pdf

12/2/2020:
Matt Kelsey:
RIVET task list and introductory pointer drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Kelsey_Pythia8Tune_2Dec2020.pdf

1/6/2021:
Matt Kelsey:
STAR Analysis Meeting Report drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Kelsey_Pythia8Tune_CollabMeeting_6Jan2021.pdf

1/20/2021:
Minutes:
drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Minutes_1_20_21.pdf

2/24/2021:
Yuanjing Ji: Update on identified spectra RIVET analysis:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/pythiatune0223.pdf
Matt Kelsey:
Update on Professor status and first pass at tuning https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Kelsey_Pythia8Tune_24JFeb2021.pdf

3/10/2021:
Matt Kelsey:
STAR Collaboration Meeting Report drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Kelsey_Pythia8Tune_CollabMeeting_10Mar2021.pdf

=========================
===========================================================================

Proposed tuning observables

=========================
- Single particle spectra + proton/pion ratio (https://arxiv.org/pdf/0808.2041.pdf, https://www.hepdata.net/record/ins930463)
- Jet mass (paper in collab.-wide review)
- Jet sub-structure (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2003.02114.pdf)
- Underlying event (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1912.08187.pdf)

- Drell-Yan (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1805.02448.pdf Tables XII + XIII) RIVET: PHENIX_2019_I1672015
Heavy Flavor:
- Open Charm spectra (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4244.pdf, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.6185.pdf)
- Heavy flavor decayed electron pt spectra (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.2611.pdf, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.2611.pdf)

p+p @ 510 GeV:

- Jet cross section (https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/zchang/run12-pp510-jet-cross-seciton-preliminary-plot)
- Z pT spectrum (https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/files/Fazio_DNP_Fall_OCT2020_v6.pdf)

Forward Physics:
- Charged particle rapidity dependence (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1011.1940.pdf)
- p/K/pi spectra at forward rapidities (https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ex/0701041.pdf)
- Proton/Pion ratio (https://arxiv.org/pdf/0910.3328.pdf)

- Drell-Yan (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1805.02448.pdf Tables XII + XIII) RIVET: PHENIX_2019_I1672015
====================================================================================================
Git repository
Contact Matt for access.

====================================================================================================

=========================
Professor: https://professor.hepforge.org/, main paper reference https://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.2973.pdf
Apprentice: https://iamholger.gitbook.io/apprentice/, new paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2103.05748.pdf
CMS HERWIG 7 tuning: https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.03422

•

•

# Main Page for Blinding Analysis Details for the Run 18 Isobar data

Link to Blinding analysis recommendations from the ABC

## List of Registered Blind Analysis Analyzers:

 Name Institute Analysis Main PWG Date added Prithwish Tribedy,  Paul Sorensen BNL qcumulants BulkCorr 2018-02-09 Sergei Voloshina, Takafumi Niida Wayne State CME (gamma, including ZDC plane vs PP); Lambda Polarization BulkCorr 2018-02-09 Gang Wang, Liwen Wen, Maria Sergeeva, Brian Chan UCLA V2; gamma correlators BulkCorr 2018-02-09 Niseem Magdy, Roy Lacey Stony Brook R(deltaS) BulkCorr 2018-02-09 Fuqiang Wang, Jie Zhao, Terrence Edmonds, Yicheng Feng, Haichuan Cao Purdue RP-ZDC vs. PP; invariant mass;  e-by-e and ESE BulkCorr 2018-02-09 Wanbing He Fudan CME/CVE BulkCorr 2018-03-12 Prashanth Shanmuganathan Lehigh V1 BulkCorr 2018-03-12

# Heavy Flavor

Depending on the energy scale, there are two mechanisms that generate quark masses with different degrees of importance: current quark masses are generated by the electroweak symmetry breaking mechanism (Higgs mass) and spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking leads to the constituent quark masses in QCD (QCD mass). The QCD interaction strongly affects the light quarks (u, d, s) while the heavy quark masses (c, b, t) are mainly determined by the Higgs mechanism. In high-energy nuclear collisions at RHIC, heavy quarks are produced through gluon fusion and qq¯ annihilation. Heavy quark production is also sensitive to the parton distribution function. Unlike the light quarks, heavy quark masses are not modified by the surrounding QCD medium (or the excitations of the QCD medium) and the value of their masses is much higher than the initial excitation of the system. It is these differences between light and heavy quarks in a medium that make heavy quarks an ideal probe to study the properties of the hot and dense medium created in high-energy nuclear collisions.

Heavy flavor analyses at STAR can be separated into quarkonia, open heavy flavor and heavy flavor leptons.

# #9995# DNP (fall meeting) 2010

Abstracts for DNP (fall meeting) 2010 (Nov. 2-6, 2010, Santa Fe, NM)

• Wenqin Xu

Title: Extracting bottom quark production cross section from p+p collisions at RHIC

The STAR collaboration has measured the non-photonic electron (NPE) production at high transverse momentum (pT ) at middle rapidity in p + p collisions at sqrt(s) = 200 GeV at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC). The relative contributions  of bottom and charm hadrons to NPE have also been obtained through electron hadron azimuthal
correlation studies. Combining these two,  we are able to determine the high pT mid-rapidity electron spectra
from bottom and charm decays, separately.

PYTHIA with different tunes and FONLL calculations have been compared  with this measured electron spectrum
from bottom decays to extract the bb-bar differential cross section after normalization to the measured spectrum.
The extrapolation of the total bb-bar production cross section in the whole kinematic range and its dependence
on spectrum shapes from model calculations will also be discussed.

• Yifei Zhang

Title: Open charm hadron reconstruction via hadronic decays in p+p collisions at $sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV

Heavy quarks are believed to be an ideal probe to study the properties of the QCD medium produced in the relativistic heavy ion collisions. Heavy quark production in elementary particle collisions is expected to be better calculated in the perturbative QCD. Precision understanding on both the charm production total cross section and the fragmentation in p+p collisions is a baseline to further explore the QCD medium via open charm and charmonium in heavy ion collisions.
Early RHIC measurements in p+p collisions which were carried out via semi-leptonic decay electrons provides limited knowledge on the heavy quark production due to the incomplete kinematics, the limited momentum coverage and the mixed contribution from various charm and bottom hadrons in the electron approach. In this talk, we will present
the reconstruction of open charm hadrons (D0 and D*) via the hadronic decays in p+p collisions at $sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV in the STAR experiment. The analysis is based on the large p+p minimum bias sample collected in RHIC Run9. The Time-Of-Flight detector, which covered 72% of the whole barrel in Run9, was used to improve the decay daughter
identification. Physics implications from this analysis will be presented.

• Xin Li

Title: Non-photonic Electron Measurements in 200 GeV p+p collisions at RHIC-STAR

Compared to the light quarks, heavy quarks are produced early in the collisions and interact very differently with the strongly couple QGP(sQGP) created at RHIC. In addition, their large masses are created mostly from the spontaneous symmetry breaking. All these features make heavy quark an ideal probe to study the sQGP. One of the critical references in these studies is the heavy quark production in p+p collisions, which also provides a crucial test to the pQCD. Measuring electrons from heavy quark semi-leptonic decay (non-photonic electron) is one of the major approaches to study heavy quark production at RHIC.

We will present STAR measurements on the mid-rapidity non-photonic electron production at pT>2 GeV/c in 200 GeV p+p collisions using the datasets from the 2008 and 2005 runs, which have dramatically different photonic backgrounds. We will compare our measurements with the published results at RHIC and also report the status of the analysis at pT<2 GeV/c using the dataset from the 2009 run.

• Jonathan Bouchet

Title: Reconstruction of charmed decays using microvertexing techniques with the STAR Silicon Detectors

Due to their production at the early stages, heavy flavor particles are of interest to study the properties of the matter created in heavy ion collisions. Direct topological reconstruction of $D$ and $B$ mesons, as opposed to indirect methods using semi-leptonic decay channels [1], provides a precise measurement and thus disentangles the $b$ and $c$ quarks contributions [2].

In this talk we present a microvertexing technique used in the reconstruction of $D^{0}$ decay vertex ($D^{0} \rightarrow K^{-}\pi^{+}$) and its charge conjugate. The significant combinatorial background can be reduced by means of
secondary vertex reconstruction and other track cut variables. Results of this method using the silicon detector information of the STAR experiment at RHIC will be presented for the Au+Au system at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

[1]A. Abelev et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 98} (2007) 192301
[2]N. Armesto et al., Phys. Lett. B{\bf 637} (2006) 362-366.

# #9996# Hard Probe 2010

Abstracts for 2010 Hard Probe Meeting (Oct. 10-15, 2010, Eilat, Israel)

•  Wei Xie
Title: Heavy flavor production and heavy flavor induced correlations at RHIC

Heavy quarks are unique probes to study the strongly coupled Quark-Gluon Plasma created at RHIC. Unlike light quarks, heavy quark masses come mostly from spontaneous symmetry breaking, which makes them ideal for studying the medium's QCD properties. Due to their large masses, they are produced early in the collisions and are expected to interact with the medium quite differently from that of light quarks. Detailed studies on the production of open heavy flavor mesons and heavy quarkonium in heavy-ion collisions and the baseline $p+p$ and $d+A$ collisions provide crucial information in understanding the medium's properties. With the large acceptance TPC, Time of Flight, EM Calorimeter and future Heavy-Flavor Tracker, STAR has the capabilities to study heavy quark production in the dense medium in all different directions. In this talk, we will review the current status as well as the future perspectives of heavy quark studies in STAR experiment.

• Zebo Tang

Title: $J/\psi$ production at high pT at STAR

The $c\bar{c}$ bound state $J/\psi$ provides a unique tool to probe the hot dense medium produced in heavy-ion collisions, but to date its production mechanism is not understood clearly neither in heavy-ion collisions nor in hadron hadron collisions. Measurement of $J/\psi$ production at high $p_T$ is particularly interesting since at high $p_T$
the various models give different predictions. More over some model calculations on $J/\psi$ production are only applicable at intermediate/high $p_T$. Besides, high $p_T$ particles are widely used to study the parton-medium interactions in heavy-ion collisions. In this talk, we will present the measurement of mid-rapidity (|y|<1) $J/\psi \rightarrow e^+e^-$ production at high $p_T$ in p+p and Cu+Cu collisions at 200 GeV, that used a trigger on electron energy deposited in Electromagnetic Calorimeter. The $J/\psi$ $p_T$ spectra and nuclear modification factors will be compared to model calculations to understand its production mechanism and medium modifications. The $J/\psi$-hadron azimuthal angle correlation will be presented to disentangle $B$-mesons contributions to inclusive $J/\psi$. Progresses
from on-going analyses in p+p collisions at 200GeV taken in year 2009 high luminosity run will be also reported.

• Rosi Reed

Title: $\Upsilon$ production in p+p, d+Au, Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{{S}_{NN }} =$ 200 GeV in STAR

Quarkonia is a good probe of the dense matter produced in heavy-ion collisions at RHIC because it is produced early in the collision and the production is theorized to be suppressed due to the Debye color screening of the potential between the heavy quarks. A model dependent measurement of the temperature of the Quark Gluon Plasma (QGP) can be determined by examining the ratio of the production of various quarkonia states in heavy ion collisions versus p+p collisions because lattice calculations indicate that the quarkonia states will be sequentially suppressed. Suppression is quantified by calculating ${R}_{AA}$, which is the ratio of the production in p+p scaled by the number of binary collisions to the production in Au+Au. The $\Upsilon$ states are of particular interest because at 200 GeV the effects of feed down and co-movers are smaller than for J/$\psi$, which decreases the systematic uncertainty of the ${R}_{AA} calculation. In addition to hadronic absorption, additional cold nuclear matter effects, such as shadowing of the PDFs, can be determined from d+Au collisions. We will present our results for mid-rapidity$\Upsilon$production in p+p, as well as our preliminary results in d+Au and Au+Au at$\sqrt{{S}_{NN }}$= 200 GeV. These results will then be compared with theoretical QCD calculations. • Wei Li Title: Non$-$Photonic Electron and Charged Hadron Azimuthal Correlation in 500 GeV p+p Collisionsions at RHIC Due to the dead cone effect, heavy quarks were expected to lose less energy than light quarks since the current theory predicted that the dominant energy loss mechanism is gluon radiation for heavy quarks. Whereas non-photonic electron from heavy quark decays show similar suppression as light hadrons at high$p_{T}$in central Au+Au collisions. It is important to separate the bottom contribution to non-photonic electron for the better understanding of heavy flavor production and energy loss mechanism in ultra high energy heavy ion collisions. B decay contribution is approximately 50$\%$at a transverse momentum of$p_{T}$$\geq5 GeV/c in 200 GeV p+p collisions from STAR results. In this talk, we will present the azimuthal correlation analysis of non-photonic electrons with charged hadrons at p_{T}$$\geq$6.5 GeV/c in p+p collisions at$\sqrt{s}$= 500 GeV at RHIC. The results are compared to PYTHIA simulations to disentangle charm and bottom contribution of semi-leptonic decays to non-photonic electrons. • Gang Wang Title: B/D Contribution to Non-Photonic Electrons and Status of Non-Photonic Electron$v_2$at RHIC In contrast to the expectations due to the dead cone effect, non-photonic electrons from decays of heavy quark carrying hadrons show a similar suppression as light hadrons at high$p_{T}$in central 200 GeV Au+Au collisions at RHIC. It is important to separate the charm and bottom contributions to non-photonic electrons to better understand the heavy flavor production and energy loss mechanism in high energy heavy ion collisions. Heavy quark energy loss and heavy quark evolution in the QCD medium can also lead to an elliptic flow$v_2$of heavy quarks which can be studied through$v_2$of non-photonic electrons. In this talk, we present the azimuthal correlation analysis of non-photonic electrons with charged hadrons at 1.5 GeV/c <$p_{T}$< 9.5 GeV/c in p+p collisions at$\sqrt{s}$= 200 GeV at RHIC, with the removal of J/$\Psi$contribution to non-photonic electrons. The results are compared with PYTHIA simulations to disentangle charm and bottom contributions of semi-leptonic decays to non-photonic electrons. B decay contribution is approximately 50$\%$at the electron transverse momentum of$p_{T}$> 5 GeV/c in 200 GeV p+p collisions from STAR results. Incorporating the spectra and energy loss information of non-photonic electrons, we further estimate the spectra and energy loss of the electrons from B/D decays. Status of$v_2$measurements for non-photonic electrons will also be discussed for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions with RHIC run2007 data. # #9997# APS 2010 April Meeting Abstracts for 2010 APS April Meeting (Feb. 13-17, 2010, Washington DC) • Jonathan Bouchet Title: Performance studies of the Silicon Detectors in STAR towards microvertexing of rare decays Abstract: Heavy quarks production ($b$and$c$) as well as their elliptic flow can be used as a probe of the thermalization of the medium created in heavy ions collisions. Direct topological reconstruction of charmed and bottom decays is then needed to obtain this precise measurement. To achieve this goal the silicon detectors of the STAR experiment are explored. These detectors, a Silicon Drift (SVT) 3-layer detector[1] and a Silicon Strip one-layer detector[2] provide tracking very near to the beam axis and allow us to search for heavy flavour with microvertexing methods.$D^{0}$meson reconstruction including the silicon detectors in the tracking algorithm will be presented for the Au+Au collisions at$\sqrt{s_{NN}}= 200 GeV, and physics opportunities will be discussed. [1]R. Bellwied et al., Nucl. Inst. Methods A499 (2003) 640. [2]L. Arnold et al., Nucl. Inst. and Methods A499 (2003) 652. • Matt Cervantes Title: Upsilon + Hadron correlations at the Relativistic Heavy-Ion Collider (RHIC) Abstract: STAR has the capability to reconstruct the heavy quarkonium states of both the J/Psi and Upsilon particles produced by the collisions at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC). The systematics of prompt production of heavy quarkonium is not fully described by current models, e.g. the Color Singlet Model (CSM) and the Color Octect Model. Hadronic activity directly around the heavy quarkonium has been proposed [1] as an experimental observable to measure the radiation emitted off the coloured heavy quark pair during production. Possible insight into the prompt production mechanism of heavy quarkonium can be obtained from this measured activity. Using STAR data from dAu collisions at sqrt(s_NN)= 200 GeV, the high S/B ratio found in Upsilon reconstruction [2] can enable us to perform an analysis of Upsilon + Hadron correlations. We will present our initial investigation of such an analysis. [1] Kraan, A. C., arXiv:0807.3123. [2] Liu, H., STAR Collaboration, arXiv:0907.4538. # PWG convener to press the approval button On this page, we collect the information about which PWG convener to press the final approval button for which conference.  Conference Convener 2018 Hot Quarks Rongrong Ma 2018 Hard Probes Petr Chaloupka 2018 EJC Petr Chaloupka 2018 ATHIC Zebo Tang 2018 Zimanyi School Petr Chaloupka 2019 Bormio Rongrong Ma 2019 IIT Indore Zebo Tang 2019 QCD Moriond Petr Chaloupka 2019 APS April Meeting Sooraj Radhakrishnan 2019 QWG Zebo Tang 2019 FAIRness Zebo Tang 2019 SQM Petr Chaloupka 2019 AUM Sooraj Radhakrishnan # Presentations This page is maintained by Gang Wang. # #9997# WWND2010 Jan 2-9, 2010 Winter Workshop on Nuclear Dynamics (Ocho Rios, Jamaica) # #9998# DNP/JPS 2009 meeting Oct. 13-17, 2009 DNP/JPS 2009 meeting (Big Island, Hawaii) # #9999# SQM 2009 meeting Sept. 27-Oct. 2, 2009 SQM 2009 meeting (Buzios, Brazil) # Proceedings # Comparisons between STAR and PHENIX This is a page that Thomas will edit to work on comparisons between STAR and PHENIX Non-Photonic electrons # HF PWG QM2011 analysis topics Random list of collected topics for HF PWG QM2011 (as 10.8.2010) Gang Wang: NPE v2 and possible NPE-h correlation based on 200 GeV data Wenqin Xu: Non-photonic electron spectrum in available Run10 AuAu data, and calculate the R_AA Rosi Reed: Upsilon RAA in the 200 GeV Yifei,David,Xin: Charm hadron measurement via the hadronic decays in both Run9 p+p and Run10 AuAu 200 GeV collisions Zebo Tang: High-pT J/psi spectra and correlations in run9 p+p and its R_AA in run10 200GeV Au+Au Xin Li/ Mustafa Mustafa: Run09 p+p and Run10 Au+Au NPE cross section. Matt Cervantes: Upsilon+hadron correlations Chris Powell: low pT J/Psi in run 10 200GeV Au+Au to obtain R_AA and polarization measurement Barbara Trzeciak: J/psi polarization with large statistic p+p sample (run 9). # HF PWG Embedding page This page is maintained by Jaroslav Bielcik # 10: 2010/JUL/20 Updated HF embedding list 20.7.2010 HF embedding priority list Upsilon in pp 2006 (done) J/psi in pp2008 (done 10.2.2010) D0/D0bar in CuCu 2005 (done 4.3.2010) pi0 (newDalitz) in pp 2008 (QA of completed sample) (19.4.2010 closed) Gamma in pp2008 re-production (20.7.2010 closed) 1) D0 in AuAu2007 (standby, expert look) 2) D0bar in AuAu2007 (standby, expert look) 3) J/psi in pp2006 (QA) 4Upsilon in AuAu2007 (setup) 5-6) electrons/eta in pp2008 re-production 7) Upsilon in dAu2008 8) pi0 (newDalitz) in CuCu 2005 9) Ds in AuAu 2007 10-13) electrons/pi0/gamma/eta in dAu 2008 14 J/psi in dAu 2008 15) J/psi in AuAu2007 16) pi0 in AuAu 2007 17) gamma in AuAu 2007 18) Upsilon in p+p 2009 (20101901) 19-20) D0/D0bar in p+p 200 GeV Run9 (20102901/20102902) 21-22)D*+/D*- in p+p 200 GeV Run9 (20102903/20102904) # q # 11:2010/AUG/11 HF embedding 11.8.2010 HF embedding priority Upsilon in pp 2006 (done) J/psi in pp2008 (done 10.2.2010) D0/D0bar in CuCu 2005 (done 4.3.2010) pi0 (newDalitz) in pp 2008 (QA of completed sample) (19.4.2010 closed) Gamma in pp2008 re-production (20.7.2010 closed) 1) D0 in AuAu2007 (standby, expert look) 2) D0bar in AuAu2007 (standby, expert look) 3) J/psi in pp2006 (QA) 4Upsilon in AuAu2007 (setup) 5-6) electrons/eta in pp2008 re-production 7) Upsilon in dAu2008 8) pi0 (newDalitz) in CuCu 2005 9) Ds in AuAu 2007 10-13) electrons/pi0/gamma/eta in dAu 2008 14 J/psi in dAu 2008 15) J/psi in AuAu2007 16) pi0 in AuAu 2007 17) gamma in AuAu 2007 18) Upsilon in p+p 2009 (20101901) 19-20) D0/D0bar in p+p 200 GeV Run9 (20102901/20102902) 21-22)D*+/D*- in p+p 200 GeV Run9 (20102903/20102904) 23) High-pT J/Psi in p+p 200GeV Run9 24-27) electrons/pi0/gamma/eta in p+p 500GeV 28) pi0+eta+electron in p+p 200 Run9 29-32) electrons/pi0/gamma/eta in Au+Au 200GeV Run10 # + # + # 12:2010/AUG/17 QM&Paper proposal HF priority reevaluation 17.8.2010 HF embedding priority (31.8.2010 update) Upsilon in pp 2006 (done) J/psi in pp2008 (done 10.2.2010) D0/D0bar in CuCu 2005 (done 4.3.2010) pi0 (newDalitz) in pp 2008 (QA of completed sample) (19.4.2010 closed) Gamma in pp2008 re-production (20.7.2010 closed) J/psi in pp2006 (18.8.2010 closed) 1) D0 in AuAu2007 (standby, expert look) 2) D0bar in AuAu2007 (standby, expert look) 3Upsilon in AuAu2007 () 4-5) electrons/eta in pp2008 re-production (paper in GPC) (open) 6) J/psi in dAu 2008 (paperdraft in PWG) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) Upsilon in p+p 2009 (20101901) QM 8-9) D0/D0bar in p+p 200 GeV Run9 (20102901/20102902) QM 10-11)D*+/D*- in p+p 200 GeV Run9 (20102903/20102904) QM 12) High-pT J/Psi in p+p 200GeV Run9 QM 13-16) electrons/pi0/gamma/eta in p+p 500GeV QM 17) pi0+eta+electron in p+p 200 Run9 QM 18) K3e in p+p 200 Run9 QM 19-22) electrons/pi0/gamma/eta in Au+Au 200GeV Run10 QM 23) K3e in Au+Au 200GeV Run10 QM Other Run 10 QM topics/ not yet requested D0 in AuAu 200 Run10 D* in AuAu 200 Run10 J/psi in AuAu200 Run10 (low pT and high pT) Upsilon in AuAu 200 Run10 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24) Upsilon in dAu2008 25) Ds in AuAu 2007 26-29) electrons/pi0/gamma/eta in dAu 2008 30) J/psi in AuAu2007 31-32) pi0 & gamma in AuAu 2007 # 13: 2010/NOV/15 Updated HF embedding list STAR coll 15.11.2010 HF embedding helpers: Mustafa Mustafa (Wenqin Xu) Barbara Trzeciak HF embedding priority (15.11.2010 update) This list will be revisited soon with respect to QM2011 1) D0 in AuAu2007 (standby, expert look) 2) D0bar in AuAu2007 (standby, expert look) 3) eta in pp2008 re-production (paper in GPC) (proccesing) 4) Upsilon in p+p 2009 (20101901) QM 5-6) D0/D0bar in p+p 200 GeV Run9 (20102901/20102902) QM 7-8)D*+/D*- in p+p 200 GeV Run9 (20102903/20102904) QM 9) High-pT J/Psi in p+p 200GeV Run9 QM 10-13) electrons/pi0/gamma/eta in p+p 500GeV QM 14-16) pi0+eta+electron in p+p 200 Run9 QM 17) K3e in p+p 200 Run9 QM 18-21) electrons/pi0/gamma/eta in Au+Au 200GeV Run10 QM 22) K3e in Au+Au 200GeV Run10 QM Other Run 10 QM topics/ not yet requested D0 in AuAu 200 Run10 D* in AuAu 200 Run10 J/psi in AuAu200 Run10 (low pT and high pT) Upsilon in AuAu 200 Run10 23) Upsilon in dAu2008 24) Ds in AuAu 2007 25-28) electrons/pi0/gamma/eta in dAu 2008 29) J/psi in AuAu2007 30-31) pi0 & gamma in AuAu 2007 Closed samples: Upsilon in pp 2006 (done) J/psi in pp2008 (done 10.2.2010) D0/D0bar in CuCu 2005 (done 4.3.2010) pi0 (newDalitz) in pp 2008 (QA of completed sample) (19.4.2010 closed) Gamma in pp2008 re-production (20.7.2010 closed) J/psi in pp2006 (18.8.2010 closed) electrons in pp2008 re-production (paper in GPC) (14.9.2010) Upsilon in AuAu2007 (20.10.2010 closed) J/psi in dAu 2008 (paperdraft in PWG) (26.10.2010 closed) # 14: 2010/NOV/16 Update of Run9 16.11.2010 Update 14.12.2010 The revisition of priority list with respect to QM2011 and readiness of RUN9 related analysis. HF embedding helpers: Mustafa Mustafa (Wenqin Xu) Barbara Trzeciak HF embedding priority (16.11.2010 update) This lis will be revisited soon with respect to QM2011 1) D0 in AuAu2007 (QA) 2) D0bar in AuAu2007 (QA) 3) electron/positron in p+p 200 Run9 QM (sample QA ) 4) D0/D0bar in p+p 200 GeV Run9 (20102901/20102902) QM 5) D*+/D*- in p+p 200 GeV Run9 (20102903/20102904) QM 6) gamma in p+p 200 Run9 QM 7) High-pT J/Psi in p+p 200GeV Run9 QM 8) Upsilon in p+p 2009 (20101901) QM 9-12) electrons/pi0/gamma/eta in p+p 500GeV QM 13-14) Ke3+pi0 in p+p 200 Run9 QM perhaps after QM 15) eta in p+p 200 Run9 QM electrons/pi0/gamma/eta in Au+Au 200GeV Run10 QM K3e in Au+Au 200GeV Run10 QM Other Run 10 QM topics/ not yet requested D0 in AuAu 200 Run10 D* in AuAu 200 Run10 J/psi in AuAu200 Run10 (low pT and high pT) Upsilon in AuAu 200 Run10 21) Upsilon in dAu2008 22) Ds in AuAu 2007 23-26) electrons/pi0/gamma/eta in dAu 2008 27) J/psi in AuAu2007 28-29) pi0 & gamma in AuAu 2007 Closed samples: Upsilon in pp 2006 (done) J/psi in pp2008 (done 10.2.2010) D0/D0bar in CuCu 2005 (done 4.3.2010) pi0 (newDalitz) in pp 2008 (QA of completed sample) (19.4.2010 closed) Gamma in pp2008 re-production (20.7.2010 closed) J/psi in pp2006 (18.8.2010 closed) electrons in pp2008 re-production (paper in GPC) (14.9.2010) Upsilon in AuAu2007 (20.10.2010 closed) J/psi in dAu 2008 (paperdraft in PWG) (26.10.2010 closed) eta in pp2008 re-production (paper in GPC) (1.12.2010 closed) # 15:2011/JAN/18 Update 18.1.2011 The revisition of priority list with respect to QM2011 and readiness of RUN9 related analysis. HF embedding helpers: Mustafa Mustafa (Wenqin Xu) Barbara Trzeciak HF embedding priority (18.1.2011 update) This lis will be revisited soon with respect to QM2011 1) D0 in AuAu2007 (completing ) 2) D0bar in AuAu2007 (completing) 3) D0/D0bar in p+p 200 GeV Run9 (20102901/20102902) (completed wating for PWG QA) 4) D*+/D*- in p+p 200 GeV Run9 (20102903/20102904) QM 5) gamma in p+p 200 Run9 QM 6) High-pT J/Psi in p+p 200GeV Run9 QM 7) Upsilon in p+p 2009 (20101901) QM 8-11) electrons/pi0/gamma/eta in p+p 500GeV QM 12-13) Ke3+pi0 in p+p 200 Run9 QM perhaps after QM 14) eta in p+p 200 Run9 QM electrons/pi0/gamma/eta in Au+Au 200GeV Run10 QM K3e in Au+Au 200GeV Run10 QM Other Run 10 QM topics/ not yet requested D0 in AuAu 200 Run10 D* in AuAu 200 Run10 J/psi in AuAu200 Run10 (low pT and high pT) Upsilon in AuAu 200 Run10 -) Upsilon in dAu2008 -) Ds in AuAu 2007 -) electrons/pi0/gamma/eta in dAu 2008 -) J/psi in AuAu2007 -) pi0 & gamma in AuAu 2007 Closed samples: Upsilon in pp 2006 (done) J/psi in pp2008 (done 10.2.2010) D0/D0bar in CuCu 2005 (done 4.3.2010) pi0 (newDalitz) in pp 2008 (QA of completed sample) (19.4.2010 closed) Gamma in pp2008 re-production (20.7.2010 closed) J/psi in pp2006 (18.8.2010 closed) electrons in pp2008 re-production (paper in GPC) (14.9.2010) Upsilon in AuAu2007 (20.10.2010 closed) J/psi in dAu 2008 (paperdraft in PWG) (26.10.2010 closed) eta in pp2008 re-production (paper in GPC) (1.12.2010 closed) electron/positron in p+p 200 Run9 (11.1. ele closed; soon pos closed) # 16:2011/JAN/24 QM2011 reordering 24.1.2011 The revisition of priority list with respect to QM2011 and readiness of RUN9/RUN10 related analysis. HF embedding helpers: Mustafa Mustafa (Wenqin Xu) Barbara Trzeciak HF embedding priority (24.1.2011 update) 1) D0 in AuAu2007 (completing ) 2) D0bar in AuAu2007 (completing) 3) D0/D0bar in p+p 200 GeV Run9 (20102901/20102902) (completed wating for PWG QA) 4) D*+/D*- in p+p 200 GeV Run9 (20102903/20102904) (sample produced) 5) gamma in p+p 200 Run9 QM pi in AuAu Run 10 K in AuAu Run 10 6) electrons in Au+Au 200GeV Run10 QM 7) gamma in Au+Au 200GeV Run10 QM --------------------------------------------------------- 8) High-pT J/Psi in p+p 200GeV Run9 QM 9) Upsilon in p+p 2009 (20101901) QM 10-13) electrons/pi0/gamma/eta in p+p 500GeV QM 14-15) Ke3+pi0 in p+p 200 Run9 QM perhaps after QM 16) eta in p+p 200 Run9 QM pi0/eta in Au+Au 200GeV Run10 QM K3e in Au+Au 200GeV Run10 QM Other Run 10 QM topics/ not yet requested D0 in AuAu 200 Run10 D* in AuAu 200 Run10 J/psi in AuAu200 Run10 (low pT and high pT) Upsilon in AuAu 200 Run10 -) Upsilon in dAu2008 -) Ds in AuAu 2007 -) electrons/pi0/gamma/eta in dAu 2008 -) J/psi in AuAu2007 -) pi0 & gamma in AuAu 2007 Closed samples: Upsilon in pp 2006 (done) J/psi in pp2008 (done 10.2.2010) D0/D0bar in CuCu 2005 (done 4.3.2010) pi0 (newDalitz) in pp 2008 (QA of completed sample) (19.4.2010 closed) Gamma in pp2008 re-production (20.7.2010 closed) J/psi in pp2006 (18.8.2010 closed) electrons in pp2008 re-production (paper in GPC) (14.9.2010) Upsilon in AuAu2007 (20.10.2010 closed) J/psi in dAu 2008 (paperdraft in PWG) (26.10.2010 closed) eta in pp2008 re-production (paper in GPC) (1.12.2010 closed) electron/positron in p+p 200 Run9 (11.1. ele closed; 18.1. closed) # 17:2011/FEB/1 QM2011 reordering 1.2.2011 The revisition of priority list with respect to QM2011 and readiness of RUN9/RUN10 related analysis. HF embedding helpers: Mustafa Mustafa Barbara Trzeciak HF embedding priority (1.3. update) 1) D0 in AuAu2007 (completing ) (14.2. finished) 2) D0bar in AuAu2007 (completing) (14.2. finished) 3) high pT gamma in p+p 200 Run9 QM (low pT closed 1.3.;producing ) 4) electrons in Au+Au 200GeV Run10 QM (on hold) 6) pi in AuAu Run 10 pi+,pi- QM 7) K in AuAu Run 10 K+, K- QM 8) --------------------------------------------------------- 11) High-pT J/Psi in p+p 200GeV Run9 12) Upsilon in p+p 2009 (20101901) 13-16) electrons/pi0/gamma/eta in p+p 500GeV 17-18) Ke3+pi0 in p+p 200 Run9 19) eta in p+p 200 Run9 eta in Au+Au 200GeV Run10 pi0 in Au+Au 200GeV Run10 K3e in Au+Au 200GeV Run10 Other Run 10 QM topics/ not yet requested D0 in AuAu 200 Run10 D* in AuAu 200 Run10 J/psi in AuAu200 Run10 (low pT and high pT) Upsilon in AuAu 200 Run10 -) Upsilon in dAu2008 -) Ds in AuAu 2007 -) electrons/pi0/gamma/eta in dAu 2008 -) J/psi in AuAu2007 -) pi0 & gamma in AuAu 2007 Closed samples: Upsilon in pp 2006 (done) J/psi in pp2008 (done 10.2.2010) D0/D0bar in CuCu 2005 (done 4.3.2010) pi0 (newDalitz) in pp 2008 (QA of completed sample) (19.4.2010 closed) Gamma in pp2008 re-production (20.7.2010 closed) J/psi in pp2006 (18.8.2010 closed) electrons in pp2008 re-production (paper in GPC) (14.9.2010) Upsilon in AuAu2007 (20.10.2010 closed) J/psi in dAu 2008 (paperdraft in PWG) (26.10.2010 closed) eta in pp2008 re-production (paper in GPC) (1.12.2010 closed) electron/positron in p+p 200 Run9 (11.1. ele closed; 18.1. closed) D*+/D*- in p+p 200 GeV Run9 (20102903/20102904) (1.2.2011) D0/D0bar in p+p 200 GeV Run9 (20102901/20102902) (6.2.2011) # 18:2011/MARCH/18 After Analysis Meeting 18.3.2011 The revisition of priority list with respect to QM2011 after STAR analysis meeting HF embedding helpers: Mustafa Mustafa Barbara Trzeciak HF embedding priority () 1) high pT gamma in p+p 200 Run9 QM (low pT closed 1.3.;producing ) 2) electrons in Au+Au 200GeV Run10 QM (on hold) 3) 4-5) pi in AuAu Run 10 pi+,pi- QM 6-7) K in AuAu Run 10 K+, K- QM 8) pi0 in p+p 200 Run9 QM QM (producing) --------------------------------------------------------- 9) High-pT J/Psi in p+p 200GeV Run9 10) Upsilon in p+p 2009 (20101901) 11-14) electrons/pi0/gamma/eta in p+p 500GeV 15) Ke3 in p+p 200 Run9 16) eta in p+p 200 Run9 eta in Au+Au 200GeV Run10 pi0 in Au+Au 200GeV Run10 K3e in Au+Au 200GeV Run10 Other Run 10 QM topics/ not yet requested D0 in AuAu 200 Run10 D* in AuAu 200 Run10 J/psi in AuAu200 Run10 (low pT and high pT) Upsilon in AuAu 200 Run10 -) Upsilon in dAu2008 -) Ds in AuAu 2007 -) electrons/pi0/gamma/eta in dAu 2008 -) J/psi in AuAu2007 -) pi0 & gamma in AuAu 2007 Closed samples: Upsilon in pp 2006 (done) J/psi in pp2008 (done 10.2.2010) D0/D0bar in CuCu 2005 (done 4.3.2010) pi0 (newDalitz) in pp 2008 (QA of completed sample) (19.4.2010 closed) Gamma in pp2008 re-production (20.7.2010 closed) J/psi in pp2006 (18.8.2010 closed) electrons in pp2008 re-production (paper in GPC) (14.9.2010) Upsilon in AuAu2007 (20.10.2010 closed) J/psi in dAu 2008 (paperdraft in PWG) (26.10.2010 closed) eta in pp2008 re-production (paper in GPC) (1.12.2010 closed) electron/positron in p+p 200 Run9 (11.1. ele closed; 18.1. closed) D*+/D*- in p+p 200 GeV Run9 (20102903/20102904) (1.2.2011) D0/D0bar in p+p 200 GeV Run9 (20102901/20102902) (6.2.2011) D0 in AuAu2007 (14.2. 2011) D0bar in AuAu2007 (14.2. 2011) # 19:2011/MAY/7 QM2011 done 7.5.2011 HF embedding helpers: Mustafa Mustafa Barbara Trzeciak HF embedding priority () ALL QM request done, rest will be revisited after QM pi0 in p+p 200 Run9 QM QM (60% part done; on hold) --------------------------------------------------------- 9) High-pT J/Psi in p+p 200GeV Run9 10) Upsilon in p+p 2009 (20101901) 11-14) electrons/pi0/gamma/eta in p+p 500GeV 15) Ke3 in p+p 200 Run9 16) eta in p+p 200 Run9 eta in Au+Au 200GeV Run10 pi0 in Au+Au 200GeV Run10 K3e in Au+Au 200GeV Run10 Other Run 10 QM topics/ not yet requested D0 in AuAu 200 Run10 D* in AuAu 200 Run10 J/psi in AuAu200 Run10 (low pT and high pT) Upsilon in AuAu 200 Run10 -) Upsilon in dAu2008 -) Ds in AuAu 2007 -) electrons/pi0/gamma/eta in dAu 2008 -) J/psi in AuAu2007 -) pi0 & gamma in AuAu 2007 Closed samples: Upsilon in pp 2006 (done) J/psi in pp2008 (done 10.2.2010) D0/D0bar in CuCu 2005 (done 4.3.2010) pi0 (newDalitz) in pp 2008 (QA of completed sample) (19.4.2010 closed) Gamma in pp2008 re-production (20.7.2010 closed) J/psi in pp2006 (18.8.2010 closed) electrons in pp2008 re-production (paper in GPC) (14.9.2010) Upsilon in AuAu2007 (20.10.2010 closed) J/psi in dAu 2008 (paperdraft in PWG) (26.10.2010 closed) eta in pp2008 re-production (paper in GPC) (1.12.2010 closed) electron/positron in p+p 200 Run9 (11.1. ele closed; 18.1. closed) D*+/D*- in p+p 200 GeV Run9 (20102903/20102904) (1.2.2011) D0/D0bar in p+p 200 GeV Run9 (20102901/20102902) (6.2.2011) D0 in AuAu2007 (14.2. 2011) D0bar in AuAu2007 (14.2. 2011) high pT gamma in p+p 200 Run9 QM (low pT closed 1.3.;23.4. closed) pi in AuAu Run 10 pi+,pi- QM (23.4. done) K in AuAu Run 10 K+, K- QM (23.4. done) # 1: 2009/26/OCT HF Embeding List Draft of current 26.10.2009 HF open issues based on collab. meeting LBNL Electron/Pi0/Gamma/Eta in dAu2008 open Pi0 (new Dalitz) in pp2005 open(simu) Pi0 (new Dalitz) in pp2008 QA produced Pi0 (new Dalitz) in CuCu2005 open D0 in CuCu2005 work on new prod D0 in AuAu2007 (P08ic finished, need re-production in P08ie) Ds in AuAu2007 open Low pT J/psi in AuAu2007 (sample produced) High pT J/psi in dAu2008 (P08ic finished, need re-production in P08ie) Low pT J/psi in dAu2008 (P08ic finished, need re-production in P08ie) Low pT J/psi in pp 2008 open Upsilon in AuAu2007 Issues with test sample (under investigation) # 20:2011/JUN/21 21.6.2011 HF embedding helpers: Mustafa Mustafa Barbara Trzeciak HF embedding priority () 1) pi0 in p+p 200 Run9 QM QM (60% part done; ongoing) 2) High-pT J/Psi in p+p 200GeV Run9 (QA) 3) Upsilon in p+p 2009 (20101901) (QA) 4-7) electrons/pi0/gamma/eta in p+p 500GeV 8) Ke3 in p+p 200 Run9 9) eta in p+p 200 Run9 12)K3e in Au+Au 200GeV Run10 Other topics/ not yet requested D0 in AuAu 200 Run10 D* in AuAu 200 Run10 J/psi in AuAu200 Run10 (low pT and high pT) Upsilon in AuAu 200 Run10 -) Upsilon in dAu2008 -) Ds in AuAu 2007 -) electrons/pi0/gamma/eta in dAu 2008 -) J/psi in AuAu2007 -) pi0 & gamma in AuAu 2007 Closed samples: Upsilon in pp 2006 (done) J/psi in pp2008 (done 10.2.2010) D0/D0bar in CuCu 2005 (done 4.3.2010) pi0 (newDalitz) in pp 2008 (QA of completed sample) (19.4.2010 closed) Gamma in pp2008 re-production (20.7.2010 closed) J/psi in pp2006 (18.8.2010 closed) electrons in pp2008 re-production (paper in GPC) (14.9.2010) Upsilon in AuAu2007 (20.10.2010 closed) J/psi in dAu 2008 (paperdraft in PWG) (26.10.2010 closed) eta in pp2008 re-production (paper in GPC) (1.12.2010 closed) electron/positron in p+p 200 Run9 (11.1. ele closed; 18.1. closed) D*+/D*- in p+p 200 GeV Run9 (20102903/20102904) (1.2.2011) D0/D0bar in p+p 200 GeV Run9 (20102901/20102902) (6.2.2011) D0 in AuAu2007 (14.2. 2011) D0bar in AuAu2007(14.2.2011) high pT gamma in p+p 200 Run9 QM (low pT closed 1.3.;23.4. closed) pi in AuAu Run 10 pi+,pi- QM (23.4. done) K in AuAu Run 10 K+, K- QM (23.4. done) # 21:2011/AUG/06 Actual priority list 6.AUG.2011 HF embedding helpers: Mustafa Mustafa Barbara Trzeciak Embeding on disk: http://portal.nersc.gov/project/star/starofl/EmbeddingOnDisk.html STAR requests page: HF embedding priority 1)High-pT J/Psi in p+p 200GeV Run9 (QA) (?!20103106 ) 2) Upsilon in p+p 2009 (20101901) (QA) (20101901) 3) electrons in p+p 500GeV (QA) (20103104) 4) pi0 in p+p 500GeV (20103102 5) eta in p+p 500GeV (20103103) 6) gamma in p+p 500GeV (20103101) 7) Ke3 in p+p 200 Run9 (20103501) 8) eta in p+p 200 Run9 (20104804) 11)K3e in Au+Au 200GeV Run10 (20103502) 12) J/psi in AuAu200 Run10 (low pT and high pT) 20113101 13) electrons in dAu 2008 (20a9d52e9df73a2ebd9da10496e7b8e6) 14) pi0 in d+Au 2008 (35d35e18b0d973a095fa183c4afdec26) 15) eta in d+Au 2008 (596a469dba1e94799da9fbdf9585079f) 16) gamma in d+Au 2008 (36c1b4631b12157601a3c9684e57ae68) ----------------------------------------------- Other topics/ not yet requested D0 in AuAu 200 Run10 D* in AuAu 200 Run10 J/psi in AuAu200 Run10 (low pT and high pT) Upsilon in AuAu 200 Run10 -) Upsilon in dAu2008 (6e3fc974bf5cc484daa76bd45969eb5b) -) Ds in AuAu 2007 -) J/psi in AuAu2007 (903b0d2f73dd55e0c03ea3de96a73ddb) -) pi0 & gamma in AuAu 2007 (19290a03c139937805a064abf6041c0d) ------------------------------------------------ Closed samples: Upsilon in pp 2006 (done) J/psi in pp2008 (done 10.2.2010) D0/D0bar in CuCu 2005 (done 4.3.2010) pi0 (newDalitz) in pp 2008 (QA of completed sample) (19.4.2010 closed) Gamma in pp2008 re-production (20.7.2010 closed) J/psi in pp2006 (18.8.2010 closed) electrons in pp2008 re-production (paper in GPC) (14.9.2010) Upsilon in AuAu2007 (20.10.2010 closed) J/psi in dAu 2008 (paperdraft in PWG) (26.10.2010 closed) eta in pp2008 re-production (paper in GPC) (1.12.2010 closed) electron/positron in p+p 200 Run9 (11.1. ele closed; 18.1. closed) D*+/D*- in p+p 200 GeV Run9 (20102903/20102904) (1.2.2011) D0/D0bar in p+p 200 GeV Run9 (20102901/20102902) (6.2.2011) D0 in AuAu2007 (14.2. 2011) D0bar in AuAu2007(14.2.2011) high pT gamma in p+p 200 Run9 QM (low pT closed 1.3.;23.4. closed) electrons in Au+Au 200GeV Run10 QM (23.4. done) pi in AuAu Run 10 pi+,pi- QM (23.4. done) K in AuAu Run 10 K+, K- QM (23.4. done) pi0 in p+p 200 Run9 QM QM (6.8. closed finished sooner) # 22:2011/NOV/16 16.NOV.2011 HF embedding helpers: Mustafa Mustafa Barbara Trzeciak Embeding on disk: http://portal.nersc.gov/project/star/starofl/EmbeddingOnDisk.html STAR requests page: HF embedding priority 3) electrons in p+p 500GeV (QA) (20103104) QA 4) pi0 in p+p 500GeV (20103102 5) eta in p+p 500GeV (20103103) 6) gamma in p+p 500GeV (20103101) 7) Ke3 in p+p 200 Run9 (20103501) ticket 8) eta in p+p 200 Run9 (20104804) 11)K3e in Au+Au 200GeV Run10 (20103502) 12) J/psi in AuAu200 Run10 (low pT and high pT) 20113101 13) electrons in dAu 2008 (20a9d52e9df73a2ebd9da10496e7b8e6) 14) pi0 in d+Au 2008 (35d35e18b0d973a095fa183c4afdec26) 15) eta in d+Au 2008 (596a469dba1e94799da9fbdf9585079f) 16) gamma in d+Au 2008 (36c1b4631b12157601a3c9684e57ae68) electrons in AuAu 39 GeV gamma in AuAu 39 GeV pi0 in AuAu39 GeV electrons in AuAu 62 GeV gamma in AuAu 62 GeV pi0 in AuAu 62 GeV ----------------------------------------------- Other topics/ not yet requested D0 in AuAu 200 Run10 D* in AuAu 200 Run10 J/psi in AuAu200 Run10 (low pT and high pT) Upsilon in AuAu 200 Run10 -) Upsilon in dAu2008 (6e3fc974bf5cc484daa76bd45969eb5b) -) Ds in AuAu 2007 -) J/psi in AuAu2007 (903b0d2f73dd55e0c03ea3de96a73ddb) -) pi0 & gamma in AuAu 2007 (19290a03c139937805a064abf6041c0d) ------------------------------------------------ Closed samples: Upsilon in pp 2006 (done) J/psi in pp2008 (done 10.2.2010) D0/D0bar in CuCu 2005 (done 4.3.2010) pi0 (newDalitz) in pp 2008 (QA of completed sample) (19.4.2010 closed) Gamma in pp2008 re-production (20.7.2010 closed) J/psi in pp2006 (18.8.2010 closed) electrons in pp2008 re-production (paper in GPC) (14.9.2010) Upsilon in AuAu2007 (20.10.2010 closed) J/psi in dAu 2008 (paperdraft in PWG) (26.10.2010 closed) eta in pp2008 re-production (paper in GPC) (1.12.2010 closed) electron/positron in p+p 200 Run9 (11.1. ele closed; 18.1. closed) D*+/D*- in p+p 200 GeV Run9 (20102903/20102904) (1.2.2011) D0/D0bar in p+p 200 GeV Run9 (20102901/20102902) (6.2.2011) D0 in AuAu2007 (14.2. 2011) D0bar in AuAu2007(14.2.2011) high pT gamma in p+p 200 Run9 QM (low pT closed 1.3.;23.4. closed) electrons in Au+Au 200GeV Run10 QM (23.4. done) pi in AuAu Run 10 pi+,pi- QM (23.4. done) K in AuAu Run 10 K+, K- QM (23.4. done) pi0 in p+p 200 Run9 QM QM (6.8. closed finished sooner) 1)High-pT J/Psi in p+p 200GeV Run9 (QA) (?!20103106 ) closed 19.8.2011 2) Upsilon in p+p 2009 (20101901) (QA) (20101901) closed 17.10.2011 # 23:2011/DEC/20 20.12.2011 HF embedding helpers: Mustafa Mustafa Barbara Trzeciak Olga Hajkova Embeding on disk: http://portal.nersc.gov/project/star/starofl/EmbeddingOnDisk.html STAR requests page: HF embedding priority 3) electrons in p+p 500GeV (QA) (20103104) QA 4) pi0 in p+p 500GeV (20103102 5) eta in p+p 500GeV (20103103) 6) gamma in p+p 500GeV (20103101) 7) Ke3 in p+p 200 Run9 (20103501) on hold 8) eta in p+p 200 Run9 (20104804) 9)eta in Au+Au 200GeV Run10 (20103108) done 3/Jan/2012 10) J/psi in AuAu200 Run10 (low pT and high pT) 20113101 12)K3e in Au+Au 200GeV Run10 (20103502) 13) electrons in dAu 2008 (20a9d52e9df73a2ebd9da10496e7b8e6) 14) pi0 in d+Au 2008 (35d35e18b0d973a095fa183c4afdec26) 15) eta in d+Au 2008 (596a469dba1e94799da9fbdf9585079f) 16) gamma in d+Au 2008 (36c1b4631b12157601a3c9684e57ae68) electrons in AuAu 39 GeV gamma in AuAu 39 GeV pi0 in AuAu39 GeV electrons in AuAu 62 GeV gamma in AuAu 62 GeV pi0 in AuAu 62 GeV ----------------------------------------------- Other topics/ not yet requested D0 in AuAu 200 Run10 D* in AuAu 200 Run10 J/psi in AuAu200 Run10 (low pT and high pT) Upsilon in AuAu 200 Run10 -) Upsilon in dAu2008 (6e3fc974bf5cc484daa76bd45969eb5b) -) Ds in AuAu 2007 -) J/psi in AuAu2007 (903b0d2f73dd55e0c03ea3de96a73ddb) -) pi0 & gamma in AuAu 2007 (19290a03c139937805a064abf6041c0d) ------------------------------------------------ Closed samples: Upsilon in pp 2006 (done) J/psi in pp2008 (done 10.2.2010) D0/D0bar in CuCu 2005 (done 4.3.2010) pi0 (newDalitz) in pp 2008 (QA of completed sample) (19.4.2010 closed) Gamma in pp2008 re-production (20.7.2010 closed) J/psi in pp2006 (18.8.2010 closed) electrons in pp2008 re-production (paper in GPC) (14.9.2010) Upsilon in AuAu2007 (20.10.2010 closed) J/psi in dAu 2008 (paperdraft in PWG) (26.10.2010 closed) eta in pp2008 re-production (paper in GPC) (1.12.2010 closed) electron/positron in p+p 200 Run9 (11.1. ele closed; 18.1. closed) D*+/D*- in p+p 200 GeV Run9 (20102903/20102904) (1.2.2011) D0/D0bar in p+p 200 GeV Run9 (20102901/20102902) (6.2.2011) D0 in AuAu2007 (14.2. 2011) D0bar in AuAu2007(14.2.2011) high pT gamma in p+p 200 Run9 QM (low pT closed 1.3.;23.4. closed) electrons in Au+Au 200GeV Run10 QM (23.4. done) pi in AuAu Run 10 pi+,pi- QM (23.4. done) K in AuAu Run 10 K+, K- QM (23.4. done) pi0 in p+p 200 Run9 QM QM (6.8. closed finished sooner) 1)High-pT J/Psi in p+p 200GeV Run9 (QA) (?!20103106 ) closed 19.8.2011 2) Upsilon in p+p 2009 (20101901) (QA) (20101901) closed 17.10.2011 # 23:2011/DEC/20/OLD 20.11.2011 HF embedding helpers: Mustafa Mustafa Barbara Trzeciak Olga Hajkova Embeding on disk: http://portal.nersc.gov/project/star/starofl/EmbeddingOnDisk.html STAR requests page: HF embedding priority 3) electrons in p+p 500GeV (QA) (20103104) QA 4) pi0 in p+p 500GeV (20103102 5) eta in p+p 500GeV (20103103) 6) gamma in p+p 500GeV (20103101) 7) Ke3 in p+p 200 Run9 (20103501) ticket 8) eta in p+p 200 Run9 (20104804) 10) J/psi in AuAu200 Run10 (low pT and high pT) 20113101 12)K3e in Au+Au 200GeV Run10 (20103502) 13) 13) electrons in dAu 2008 (20a9d52e9df73a2ebd9da10496e7b8e6) 14) pi0 in d+Au 2008 (35d35e18b0d973a095fa183c4afdec26) 15) eta in d+Au 2008 (596a469dba1e94799da9fbdf9585079f) 16) gamma in d+Au 2008 (36c1b4631b12157601a3c9684e57ae68) electrons in AuAu 39 GeV gamma in AuAu 39 GeV pi0 in AuAu39 GeV electrons in AuAu 62 GeV gamma in AuAu 62 GeV pi0 in AuAu 62 GeV ----------------------------------------------- Other topics/ not yet requested D0 in AuAu 200 Run10 D* in AuAu 200 Run10 J/psi in AuAu200 Run10 (low pT and high pT) Upsilon in AuAu 200 Run10 -) Upsilon in dAu2008 (6e3fc974bf5cc484daa76bd45969eb5b) -) Ds in AuAu 2007 -) J/psi in AuAu2007 (903b0d2f73dd55e0c03ea3de96a73ddb) -) pi0 & gamma in AuAu 2007 (19290a03c139937805a064abf6041c0d) ------------------------------------------------ Closed samples: Upsilon in pp 2006 (done) J/psi in pp2008 (done 10.2.2010) D0/D0bar in CuCu 2005 (done 4.3.2010) pi0 (newDalitz) in pp 2008 (QA of completed sample) (19.4.2010 closed) Gamma in pp2008 re-production (20.7.2010 closed) J/psi in pp2006 (18.8.2010 closed) electrons in pp2008 re-production (paper in GPC) (14.9.2010) Upsilon in AuAu2007 (20.10.2010 closed) J/psi in dAu 2008 (paperdraft in PWG) (26.10.2010 closed) eta in pp2008 re-production (paper in GPC) (1.12.2010 closed) electron/positron in p+p 200 Run9 (11.1. ele closed; 18.1. closed) D*+/D*- in p+p 200 GeV Run9 (20102903/20102904) (1.2.2011) D0/D0bar in p+p 200 GeV Run9 (20102901/20102902) (6.2.2011) D0 in AuAu2007 (14.2. 2011) D0bar in AuAu2007(14.2.2011) high pT gamma in p+p 200 Run9 QM (low pT closed 1.3.;23.4. closed) electrons in Au+Au 200GeV Run10 QM (23.4. done) pi in AuAu Run 10 pi+,pi- QM (23.4. done) K in AuAu Run 10 K+, K- QM (23.4. done) pi0 in p+p 200 Run9 QM QM (6.8. closed finished sooner) 1)High-pT J/Psi in p+p 200GeV Run9 (QA) (?!20103106 ) closed 19.8.2011 2) Upsilon in p+p 2009 (20101901) (QA) (20101901) closed 17.10.2011 # 24:2012/JAN/24 QM12 preparation 20.12.2011 HF embedding helpers: Mustafa Mustafa Barbara Trzeciak Olga Hajkova Embeding on disk: http://portal.nersc.gov/project/star/starofl/EmbeddingOnDisk.html STAR requests page: HF embedding priority 1) electrons in p+p 500GeV (QA) (20103104) QA 2) pi0 in p+p 500GeV (20103102 3) eta in p+p 500GeV (20103103) 4) gamma in p+p 500GeV (20103101) 5) Ke3 in p+p 200 Run9 (20103501) on hold 6) eta in p+p 200 Run9 (20104804) reproduction ongoing 7) J/psi in AuAu200 Run10 (low pT and high pT) 20113101 9)K3e in Au+Au 200GeV Run10 (20103502) 10) electrons in dAu 2008 (20a9d52e9df73a2ebd9da10496e7b8e6) 11) pi0 in d+Au 2008 (35d35e18b0d973a095fa183c4afdec26) 12) eta in d+Au 2008 (596a469dba1e94799da9fbdf9585079f) 13) gamma in d+Au 2008 (36c1b4631b12157601a3c9684e57ae68) QM12 electrons in AuAu 39 GeV Run10 (20114301 and 20114302) SL10k gamma in AuAu 39 GeV Run10 (20114308) SL10k pi0 in AuAu39 GeV Run10 (20114307) SL10k electrons in AuAu 62 GeV Run10 (20114305) SL10k gamma in AuAu 62 GeV Run10 (20114303) SL10k pi0 in AuAu 62 GeV Run10 (20114304) SL10k pp500 Run11 ? NPE ele (2012801) ,gamma (2012801) ,pi0 (2012801), eta (2012801) SL11d K,pi,D0,D* Run 11 J/Psi Run 11? Upsilon Run 11? ----------------------------------------------- Other topics/ not yet requested D0 in AuAu 200 Run10 D* in AuAu 200 Run10 J/psi in AuAu200 Run10 (low pT and high pT) Upsilon in AuAu 200 Run10 -) Upsilon in dAu2008 (6e3fc974bf5cc484daa76bd45969eb5b) -) Ds in AuAu 2007 -) J/psi in AuAu2007 (903b0d2f73dd55e0c03ea3de96a73ddb) -) pi0 & gamma in AuAu 2007 (19290a03c139937805a064abf6041c0d) ------------------------------------------------ Closed samples: Upsilon in pp 2006 (done) J/psi in pp2008 (done 10.2.2010) D0/D0bar in CuCu 2005 (done 4.3.2010) pi0 (newDalitz) in pp 2008 (QA of completed sample) (19.4.2010 closed) Gamma in pp2008 re-production (20.7.2010 closed) J/psi in pp2006 (18.8.2010 closed) electrons in pp2008 re-production (paper in GPC) (14.9.2010) Upsilon in AuAu2007 (20.10.2010 closed) J/psi in dAu 2008 (paperdraft in PWG) (26.10.2010 closed) eta in pp2008 re-production (paper in GPC) (1.12.2010 closed) electron/positron in p+p 200 Run9 (11.1. ele closed; 18.1. closed) D*+/D*- in p+p 200 GeV Run9 (20102903/20102904) (1.2.2011) D0/D0bar in p+p 200 GeV Run9 (20102901/20102902) (6.2.2011) D0 in AuAu2007 (14.2. 2011) D0bar in AuAu2007(14.2.2011) high pT gamma in p+p 200 Run9 QM (low pT closed 1.3.;23.4. closed) electrons in Au+Au 200GeV Run10 QM (23.4. done) pi in AuAu Run 10 pi+,pi- QM (23.4. done) K in AuAu Run 10 K+, K- QM (23.4. done) pi0 in p+p 200 Run9 QM QM (6.8. closed finished sooner) 1)High-pT J/Psi in p+p 200GeV Run9 (QA) (?!20103106 ) closed 19.8.2011 2) Upsilon in p+p 2009 (20101901) (QA) (20101901) closed 17.10.2011 9)eta in Au+Au 200GeV Run10 (20103108) done 3/Jan/2012 closed 17/JAN/2012 # 25:2012/FEB/21 QM 2012 list 21.2.2012 HF embedding helpers: Mustafa Mustafa (=> Xin Li) Olga Hajkova (Barbara Trzeciak) Embeding on disk: http://portal.nersc.gov/project/star/starofl/EmbeddingOnDisk.html STAR requests page: HF embedding priority 0) electrons in p+p 500GeV (QA) (20103104) QA 0) pi0 in p+p 500GeV (20103102 0) eta in p+p 500GeV (20103103) 0) gamma in p+p 500GeV (20103101) 0) Ke3 in p+p 200 Run9 (20103501) on hold 0) eta in p+p 200 Run9 (20104804) reproduction ongoing 1) J/psi in AuAu200 Run10 (low pT and high pT) 20113101 3)K3e in Au+Au 200GeV Run10 (20103502) 4)electrons in AuAu 39 GeV Run10 (20114301 and 20114302) SL10k 5)gamma in AuAu 39 GeV Run10 (20114308) SL10k 6)electrons in AuAu 62 GeV Run10 (20114305) SL10k 7)gamma in AuAu 62 GeV Run10 (20114303) SL10k 8)K,pi,D0,D* Run 11 Au+Au (pi+ (2012801), pi- (2012801), K+ (2012801), K-(2012801) ) 9) K,pi in Run 11 p+p 500 (pi+ , pi-, K+, K-) 10) electrons in dAu 2008 (20a9d52e9df73a2ebd9da10496e7b8e6) 11) gamma in d+Au 2008 (36c1b4631b12157601a3c9684e57ae68) 12) J/Psi in Au+Au Run 11 (2012801) 13) pp500 Run11 NPE ele (2012801 14) pp500 Run 11 gamma (2012801) =================== pi0 in AuAu39 GeV Run10 (20114307) SL10k pi0 in AuAu 62 GeV Run10 (20114304) SL10k pp500 Run11 pi0 (2012801), eta (2012801) SL11d Upsilon Run 11? 11) pi0 in d+Au 2008 (35d35e18b0d973a095fa183c4afdec26) 12) eta in d+Au 2008 (596a469dba1e94799da9fbdf9585079f) ----------------------------------------------- Other topics/ not yet requested D0 in AuAu 200 Run10 D* in AuAu 200 Run10 J/psi in AuAu200 Run10 (low pT and high pT) Upsilon in AuAu 200 Run10 -) Upsilon in dAu2008 (6e3fc974bf5cc484daa76bd45969eb5b) -) Ds in AuAu 2007 -) J/psi in AuAu2007 (903b0d2f73dd55e0c03ea3de96a73ddb) -) pi0 & gamma in AuAu 2007 (19290a03c139937805a064abf6041c0d) ------------------------------------------------ Closed samples: Upsilon in pp 2006 (done) J/psi in pp2008 (done 10.2.2010) D0/D0bar in CuCu 2005 (done 4.3.2010) pi0 (newDalitz) in pp 2008 (QA of completed sample) (19.4.2010 closed) Gamma in pp2008 re-production (20.7.2010 closed) J/psi in pp2006 (18.8.2010 closed) electrons in pp2008 re-production (paper in GPC) (14.9.2010) Upsilon in AuAu2007 (20.10.2010 closed) J/psi in dAu 2008 (paperdraft in PWG) (26.10.2010 closed) eta in pp2008 re-production (paper in GPC) (1.12.2010 closed) electron/positron in p+p 200 Run9 (11.1. ele closed; 18.1. closed) D*+/D*- in p+p 200 GeV Run9 (20102903/20102904) (1.2.2011) D0/D0bar in p+p 200 GeV Run9 (20102901/20102902) (6.2.2011) D0 in AuAu2007 (14.2. 2011) D0bar in AuAu2007(14.2.2011) high pT gamma in p+p 200 Run9 QM (low pT closed 1.3.;23.4. closed) electrons in Au+Au 200GeV Run10 QM (23.4. done) pi in AuAu Run 10 pi+,pi- QM (23.4. done) K in AuAu Run 10 K+, K- QM (23.4. done) pi0 in p+p 200 Run9 QM QM (6.8. closed finished sooner) 1)High-pT J/Psi in p+p 200GeV Run9 (QA) (?!20103106 ) closed 19.8.2011 2) Upsilon in p+p 2009 (20101901) (QA) (20101901) closed 17.10.2011 9)eta in Au+Au 200GeV Run10 (20103108) done 3/Jan/2012 closed 17/JAN/2012 # 26:2012/APR/24 QM update 29.5.2012 status HF embedding helpers: Mustafa Mustafa Olga Hajkova Embeding on disk: http://portal.nersc.gov/project/star/starofl/EmbeddingOnDisk.html STAR requests page: HF embedding priority 1)electrons in AuAu 62 GeV Run10 (20114305) SL10k done 2)gamma in AuAu 62 GeV Run10 (20114303) SL10k done 3) electrons in dAu 2008 (20a9d52e9df73a2ebd9da10496e7b8e6) for Y paper + HP 4)K,pi Run 11 Au+Au (pi+ (2012801), pi- (2012801), K+ (2012801), K-(2012801) ) finished 5)gamma in AuAu 39 GeV Run10 (20114308) SL10k8) finished 6)electrons in AuAu 39 GeV Run10 (20114301 and 20114302) SL10k 18% produced 7) K,pi in Run 11 p+p 500 (pi+ , pi-, K+, K-) 8) gamma in d+Au 2008 (36c1b4631b12157601a3c9684e57ae68) =================== 9) J/Psi in Au+Au Run 11 (2012801) 10) pp500 Run11 NPE ele (2012801) 25% produced 11) pp500 Run 11 gamma (2012801) 0) electrons in p+p 500GeV (QA) (20103104) QA 0) pi0 in p+p 500GeV (20103102) 0) eta in p+p 500GeV (20103103) 0) gamma in p+p 500GeV (20103101) 0) eta in p+p 200 Run9 (20104804) 3)K3e in Au+Au 200GeV Run10 (20103502) pi0 in AuAu39 GeV Run10 (20114307) SL10k pi0 in AuAu 62 GeV Run10 (20114304) SL10k pp500 Run11 pi0 (2012801), eta (2012801) SL11d Upsilon Run 11? 11) pi0 in d+Au 2008 (35d35e18b0d973a095fa183c4afdec26) 12) eta in d+Au 2008 (596a469dba1e94799da9fbdf9585079f) ----------------------------------------------- Other topics/ not yet requested D0 in AuAu 200 Run10 D* in AuAu 200 Run10 J/psi in AuAu200 Run10 (low pT and high pT) Upsilon in AuAu 200 Run10 -) Upsilon in dAu2008 (6e3fc974bf5cc484daa76bd45969eb5b) -) Ds in AuAu 2007 -) J/psi in AuAu2007 (903b0d2f73dd55e0c03ea3de96a73ddb) -) pi0 & gamma in AuAu 2007 (19290a03c139937805a064abf6041c0d) ------------------------------------------------ Closed samples: Upsilon in pp 2006 (done) J/psi in pp2008 (done 10.2.2010) D0/D0bar in CuCu 2005 (done 4.3.2010) pi0 (newDalitz) in pp 2008 (QA of completed sample) (19.4.2010 closed) Gamma in pp2008 re-production (20.7.2010 closed) J/psi in pp2006 (18.8.2010 closed) electrons in pp2008 re-production (paper in GPC) (14.9.2010) Upsilon in AuAu2007 (20.10.2010 closed) J/psi in dAu 2008 (paperdraft in PWG) (26.10.2010 closed) eta in pp2008 re-production (paper in GPC) (1.12.2010 closed) electron/positron in p+p 200 Run9 (11.1. ele closed; 18.1. closed) D*+/D*- in p+p 200 GeV Run9 (20102903/20102904) (1.2.2011) D0/D0bar in p+p 200 GeV Run9 (20102901/20102902) (6.2.2011) D0 in AuAu2007 (14.2. 2011) D0bar in AuAu2007(14.2.2011) high pT gamma in p+p 200 Run9 QM (low pT closed 1.3.;23.4. closed) electrons in Au+Au 200GeV Run10 QM (23.4. done) pi in AuAu Run 10 pi+,pi- QM (23.4. done) K in AuAu Run 10 K+, K- QM (23.4. done) pi0 in p+p 200 Run9 QM QM (6.8. closed finished sooner) 1)High-pT J/Psi in p+p 200GeV Run9 (QA) (?!20103106 ) closed 19.8.2011 2) Upsilon in p+p 2009 (20101901) (QA) (20101901) closed 17.10.2011 9)eta in Au+Au 200GeV Run10 (20103108) done 3/Jan/2012 closed 17/JAN/20120) Ke3 in p+p 200 Run9 (20103501) done march/2012 ? 2)pi0 in Au+Au 200GeV Run10 (20103107) done april/2012 1) J/psi in AuAu200 Run10 (low pT and high pT) 20113101 done feb12 # 27:2012/02/OCT Status (2016/04/05): ## HF embedding helpers: Zach Miller David Tlusty ## STAR requests page: ## New HF embedding requests ## Closed samples: ### Run14 ### Run13 ### J/psi->mumu in pp 500 GeV Run13 (MTD) pi/K/p in pp 500 GeV Run13 (MTD): pi+/-, K+/-, proton/anti-proton ### Run12 ### pi in U+U 193 GeV (20124801, 20124802) K in U+U 193 GeV (20124804,20124803) e+/e- in U+U 193 Gev run 12 (central0-5%) gamma in U+U 193 GeV run 12 (central0-5%) J/psi in U+U 193 GeV run 12 Upsilon in U+U 193 GeV run 12 D0/D0bar in p+p 200 GeV run12 (VPDMB) D*+/D*- in p+p 200 GeV run12 (VPDMB) D*+/D*- p+p 200 GeV run 12 (HT) e+/e- in p+p 200 GeV run 12 (HT) gamma in p+p 200 GeV run 12 (HT) pi0 dalitz in p+p 200 GeV run 12 (HT) eta dalitz in p+p 200 GeV run 12 (HT) Ke3 in p+p 200 GeV run 12 (HT) e+/e- in p+p 200 GeV run 12 (VPDMB) gamma in p+p 200 GeV run 12 (VPDMB) pi0 dalitz in p+p 200 GeV run 12 (VPDMB) eta dalitz in p+p 200 GeV run 12 (VPDMB) Ke3 in p+p 200 GeV run 12 (VPDMB) J/psi->ee in p+p 200 GeV run 12 (MB) J/psi->ee in p+p 200 GeV run 12 (BHT0) J/psi->ee in p+p 200 GeV run 12 (BHT1) J/psi->ee in p+p 200 GeV run 12 (BHT2) ### Run11 pi/K in Run 11 p+p 500 (MB): pi+ , pi-, K+, K- pi/K/p in Run11 pp 500 (BHT1): pi+/-, K+/-, proton/anti-proton J/Psi in Run11 pp500 GeV pi0 pp500 Run11 gamma pp500 Run 11 electron in pp500 Run11 eta pp 500 Run11 Upsilon(1S+2S+3S) p+p 500 GeV run 11 Psi(2s) in p+p 500 GeV run 11 gamma in p+p 500 GeV run 11 gamma in Au+Au 200 GeV run 11 pi0 dalitz in Au+Au 200 GeV run 11 eta dalitz in Au+Au 200 GeV run 11 K,pi Run 11 Au+Au: pi+, pi-, K+, K- J/Psi in Au+Au Run 11 ### Run10 ### pi in AuAu Run 10 pi+,pi- K in AuAu Run 10 K+, K- eta in Au+Au 200GeV Run10 pi0 in Au+Au 200GeV Run10 J/psi in AuAu200 Run10 electrons in Au+Au 200GeV Run10 gamma in Au+Au 200GeV Run10 Ke3 in Au+Au 200GeV Run10 K^{0}_{e3} in Au+Au 200 GeV run 10 electrons in AuAu 62 GeV Run10 gamma in AuAu 62 GeV Run10 pi0 in AuAu 62 GeV Run10 Ke3 in Au+Au 62 GeV run 10 Eta in Au+Au 62 GeV run 10 pi0 in AuAu39 GeV Run10 Ke3 in Au+Au 39 GeV run 10 gamma in AuAu 39 GeV Run10 electrons in AuAu 39 GeV Run10 Run9 1. pi0 in p+p 200 Run9 2. High-pT J/Psi in p+p 200GeV Run9 3. Upsilon in p+p 2009 4. Upsilons in pp200 Run9 5. Ke3 in p+p 200 Run9 6. electron/positron in p+p 200 Run9 7. D*+/D*- in p+p 200 GeV Run9 8. D0/D0bar in p+p 200 GeV Run9 9. electrons in p+p 500GeV 10. gamma in p+p 500GeV 11. pi0 in p+p 500GeV 12. eta in p+p 500GeV ### Run8 1. J/psi in pp2008 2. pi0 (newDalitz) in pp 2008 3. Gamma in pp2008 re-production (20.7.2010 closed) 4. electrons in pp2008 re-production 5. eta in pp2008 re-production 6. J/psi in dAu 2008 7. electrons in dAu 2008 8. gamma in d+Au 2008 9. pi0 in d+Au 2008 10. eta in d+Au 2008 ### Run7 ### Upsilon in AuAu2007 D0 in AuAu2007 D0bar in AuAu2007 high pT gamma in p+p 200 Run9 Run6 ### Upsilon in pp 2006 J/psi in pp2006 Run5 - Ds in AuAu 2007 - J/psi in AuAu2007 (903b0d2f73dd55e0c03ea3de96a73ddb) # 2: 2009/9/NOV Suggested HF Embedding Priority list 7.NOV.2009 HF embedding priority list for PWGC discussion 1) Upsilon in pp 2006 (done) 2) D0/D0bar in CuCu 2005 3) pi0 (new Dalitz) in pp 2008 4) Upsilon and Ds in AuAu2007 5) Upsilon in dAu2008 6) low pT J/psi in AuAu2007 7) electrons/gamma/eta in pp2008 re-production 8) pi0 (new Dalitz) in CuCu 2005 9) D0/D0bar in AuAu 2007 10) electrons/pi0/gamma/eta in dAu 2008 11) high and low pT J/psi in dAu 2008 12) high pT J/psi in pp2008 # 3:2009/9/NOV Upsilon in dAu 200 request Primary contact: Haidong Liu ----------------------------------------- d+Au 200 GeV (year 2008) fast stream data st_upsilon 20K events for each states (1s, 2s, 3s) flat in pT and y: pT= 0 - 8 GeV/c y= -1.5 - 1.5 1 Upsilon per event let the Upsilon decay only into e+e- production version: P08ie starver: SL08e geant geometry option: y2008(low material) ------------------------------------------ # 4: 2009/24/NOV: Gamma in AuAu200 (2007) request Primary contact: Bertrand Biritz ---------------------------------------- AuAu 200 GeV (year 2007) fast stream data st_btag 1M events for gamma conversions and then 1M for pi0 dalitz decay flat in pT and y: pT= 0 - 6 GeV/c y= -1.5 - 1.5 production version: P08ie starver: SL08e geant geometry option: y2007 # 5:2009/2/DEC: Updated HF priority list 2.DEC. 2009 HF embedding priority list for PWGC discussion 1) Upsilon in pp 2006 (done) 2) D0/D0bar in CuCu 2005 (QA done, processing) 3) pi0 (new Dalitz) in pp 2008 (QA done, processing) 4) Upsilon and Ds in AuAu2007 5) Upsilon in dAu2008 6) low pT J/psi in AuAu2007 7) electrons/gamma/eta in pp2008 re-production 8) pi0 (new Dalitz) in CuCu 2005 9) D0/D0bar in AuAu 2007 10) electrons/pi0/gamma/eta in dAu 2008 11) high and low pT J/psi in dAu 2008 12) high pT J/psi in pp2008 13) pi0 and gamma in AuAu 2007 # ... # 6: 2009/15/DEC Update of heavy flavor embedding priority list 15.DEC. 2009 exchange of Ds and D0 in AuAu2007 priority was done HF embedding priority list 1) Upsilon in pp 2006 (done) 2) D0/D0bar in CuCu 2005 (QA done, processing) 3) pi0 (new Dalitz) in pp 2008 (QA done, processing) 4) Upsilon and D0 in AuAu2007 5) Upsilon in dAu2008 6) low pT J/psi in AuAu2007 7) electrons/gamma/eta in pp2008 re-production 8) pi0 (new Dalitz) in CuCu 2005 9) Ds in AuAu 2007 10) electrons/pi0/gamma/eta in dAu 2008 11) high and low pT J/psi in dAu 2008 12) high pT J/psi in pp2008 13) pi0 and gamma in AuAu 2007 # 7: 2010/JAN/12 J/Psi dAu2010 embedding on disk The old J/Psi embedding files are on disk for period january 2010: /eliza14/star/starprod/embedding/production_dAu/Jpsi_10{3-7}_1229459741 It is about 150 GB of files Requested by Chris Powell and Olga Hajkova # 8:2010/3/MARCH Updated HF priority list 9.MARCH. 2010 J/Psi pp2006 request switched with J/Psi AuAu2007 and moved to highest priority. This is done because existing paper proposal and short time before Daniel leaves STAR HF embedding priority list Upsilon in pp 2006 (done) J/psi in pp2008 (done 10.2.2010) D0/D0bar in CuCu 2005 (done 4.3.2010) 1) pi0 (newDalitz) in pp 2008 (processing) 2) D0 in AuAu2007 (processing) 3) D0bar in AuAu2007 4) J/psi in pp2006 5) Upsilon in AuAu2007 6) Upsilon in dAu2008 7) electrons/gamma/eta in pp2008 re-production 8) pi0 (newDalitz) in CuCu 2005 9) Ds in AuAu 2007 10) electrons/pi0/gamma/eta in dAu 2008 11 J/psi in dAu 2008 12) J/psi in AuAu2007 13) pi0 in AuAu 2007 14) gamma in AuAu 2007 # 9:2010/APR/8 Updated HF priority list 8.APRIL. 2010 NPE p+p requests moved to higher priority. This is done because existing paper proposal and urgency to resolve the issue HF embedding priority list Upsilon in pp 2006 (done) J/psi in pp2008 (done 10.2.2010) D0/D0bar in CuCu 2005 (done 4.3.2010) 1) pi0 (newDalitz) in pp 2008 (QA of completed sample) (19.4.2010 closed) 2) D0 in AuAu2007 (processing) 3) D0bar in AuAu2007 (processing) 4) J/psi in pp2006 (QA) 5) Gamma in pp2008 re-production 6) Upsilon in AuAu2007 7-8) electrons/eta in pp2008 re-production 9) Upsilon in dAu2008 10) pi0 (newDalitz) in CuCu 2005 11) Ds in AuAu 2007 12-15) electrons/pi0/gamma/eta in dAu 2008 16 J/psi in dAu 2008 17) J/psi in AuAu2007 18) pi0 in AuAu 2007 19) gamma in AuAu 2007 # HF PWG Preliminary plots # This page collects the preliminary plots approved by the HF PWG. 1) All the preliminary plots MUST contain a "STAR Preliminary" label. # 2) Please include at least pdf and png versions for the figures # 3) Where to put the data points: it is recommended to put the data point at the x position whose yield is equal to the averge yield of the bin. # Open Heavy Flavor  Year System Physics figures First shown Link to figures 2014+2016 Au+Au @ 200 GeV HFT: D+/- RAA 2020 HP plots 2014+2016 Au+Au @ 200 GeV HFT: Ds+/- spectra, ratio 2019 QM plots 2016 Au+Au @ 200 GeV HFT: D+/- RAA 2018 QM plots 2016 d+Au @ 200 GeV HFT: D0 2018 QM plots 2014 Au+Au @ 200 GeV HFT: D*/D0 ratio 2018 QM plots 2014+2016 Au+Au @ 200 GeV HFT: D0 v1 2018 QM plots 2014+2016 Au+Au @ 200 GeV HFT: non-prompt Jpsi 2017 QM plots 2014 Au+Au @ 200 GeV HFT: non-prompt D0 2017 QM plots 2014 Au+Au @ 200 GeV HFT: B/D->e 2017 QM plots 2014 2014+2016 Au+Au @ 200 GeV HFT: Lc/D0 Ds/D0 ratio HFT: Lc/D0ratio HFT: Lc/D0 Ds/D0 vs ALICE 2017 QM 2018 QM 2019 Moriond plots 2014 Au+Au @ 200 GeV HFT: Ds RAA and v2 2017 CPOD plots 2014 Au+Au @ 200 GeV HFT: D+/- 2017 QM plots 2014 Au+Au @ 200 GeV HFT: D0 v3 2017 QM plots 2014 Au+Au @ 200 GeV D0-hadron correlation 2017 QM plots 2014 Au+Au @ 200 GeV HFT: D0 RAA HFT: D0 RAA HFT: D0 RAA and v2 2019 SQM 2018 QM 2015 QM # Quarkonium  Year System Physics figures First shown Link to figures 2011 p+p @ 500 GeV BEMC: Jpsi in jet 2020 HP plots 2015 p+Au @ 200 GeV BEMC: Jpsi RpA 2020 HP plots 2016 2014 2011 Au+Au @ 200 GeV MTD/HT: Upsilon RAA 2018 QM 2017 QM plots plots 2015 p+p, p+Au @ 200 GeV MTD: Jpsi cross-section, RpA 2017 QM plots 2015 p+p @ 200 GeV MTD: Jpsi polarization 2017 PANIC plots 2015 p+p, p+Au @ 200 GeV BEMC: Upsilon RpAu 2017 QM plots 2014 Au+Au @ 200 GeV MTD: Jpsi RAA, v2, Upsilon ratio 2015 QM 2016 sQM plots 2013 p+p @ 500 GeV MTD: Jpsi yield vs. event activity 2015 HP plots 2013 p+p @ 500 GeV MTD: Jpsi cross-section 2016 sQM plots 2012 U+U @ 193 GeV MB: low-pT Jpsi excess 2016 sQM plots 2012 U+U @ 193 GeV MB/BEMC: Jpsi v2 2017 QM plots 2012 p+p @ 200 GeV MB/BEMC: Jpsi cross-section, event activity BEMC: Jpsi polarization 2016 QWG plots plots 2011 Au+Au @ 200 GeV MB/BEMC: Jpsi v2 2015 QM plots 2011 Au+Au @ 200 GeV MB: low-pT Jpsi excess 2016 sQM plots 2011 p+p @ 500 GeV BEMC: Jpsi cross-section WWND plots 2011 p+p @ 500 GeV HT: Upsilon cross-section HT: Upsilon event activity 2017 QM 2018 PWRHIC plots # Electrons from Heavy Flavor Decay  Year System Physics figures First shown Link to figures 2017 Au+Au @ 27 & 54.4 GeV NPE v2 2020 HP plots 2014+2016 Au+Au @ 200 GeV HF electron: fraction, RAA, double ratio 2019 QM plots 2014 Au+Au @ 200 GeV NPE cross-section; RAA (without HFT) 2017 QM plots 2012 p+p @ 200 GeV NPE-hadron correlation, b fraction 2016 Santa Fe plots 2012 p+p @ 200 GeV NPE cross-section; udpated RAA 2015 QM plots # HF PWG Weekly Meeting Zoom info (from Oct 1st, 2020): https://bnl.zoomgov.com/j/1604584756?pwd=Yy9KaVFvbjZXWG1zMk5HanVhb0k1UT09 Meeting ID: 160 458 4756 Passcode: 892296 One tap mobile +16692545252,,1604584756# US (San Jose) +16468287666,,1604584756# US (New York) Dial by your location +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose) +1 646 828 7666 US (New York) Meeting ID: 160 458 4756 Find your local number: https://bnl.zoomgov.com/u/aemMGS8CqL Join by SIP 1604584756@sip.zoomgov.com Join by H.323 161.199.138.10 (US West) 161.199.136.10 (US East) 52 61 100.140 Meeting ID: 160 458 4756 Passcode: 892296 Bluejeans meeting info: To join the Meeting: https://bluejeans.com/816517744 To join via Browser: https://bluejeans.com/816517744/browser To join with Lync: https://bluejeans.com/816517744/lync To join via Cisco Jabber Video: https://bluejeans.com/816517744/jabber To join via Room System: Video Conferencing System: bjn.vc -or- 199.48.152.152 Meeting ID: 816517744 To join via Phone: 1) Dial: +1 888 240 2560(US Toll Free) 2) Enter Conference ID: 816517744 2021/04/22 1) Upsilon production vs. multiplicity in pp collisions - Leszek Kosarzewski 2) Inclusive J/psi production at 54.4 GeV - Kaifeng Shen minutes - Barbara 2021/03/25 1) Total charm cross-section in Au+Au 200 GeV from STAR - Xinyue Ju 2021/03/18 1) Run21 QA report - Kaifeng Shen 2) Update on Upsilon production vs. multiplicity - Leszek Kosarzewski 2021/3/1-12 STAR Collaboration Meeting (agenda) HF Parallel 1 HF Parallel 2 HF Parallel 3 2021/02/25 1) D+/- in Au+Au collisions at 200 GeV with the HFT - Jan Vanek minutes - Barbara 2021/02/18 1) J/psi v2 - Yu-Ming Liu 2021/01/21 1) Update on the Upsilon analysis with Run15pp/pAu 200 GeV data - Zaochen Ye 2020/12/17 1) Update on HFE analysis in AuAu collisions - Shenghui Zhang minutes - Barbara 2020/12/3 1) Paper proposal for J/psi in jet - Qian Yang 2020/11/5 1) Update on trigger bias studies in 2015 p+p and p+Au data - Rongrong Ma 2) Feasibility study of reconstructing chi_c in Run-15 p+p data set - Aarif Chaudhary minutes - Sooraj 2020/10/22 1) Update on HFE analysis in p+p collisions - replies to PWGC preview - Shenghui Zhang 2) Update on D+/- reconstruction with the HFT - Jan Vanek minutes - Barbara 2020/10/15 1) Update on the trigger bias study for Run15 Jpsi RpA analysis - Rongrong Ma 2) Update on the study of J/psi production with jet activity - Hao Huang minutes - Yi 2020/10/08 J/Psi production with jet activity - Hao Huang minutes - Sooraj 2020/10/01 Running a collider mode during CeC for 2021, with 26.5 GeV/u beam - All minutes - Barbara 2020/09/03 1) D0 in d+Au collisions - Lukas Kramarik minutes - Sooraj 2020/08/20 1) Update on Heavy Flavor Decay Electron at high pT in p+p 200 GeV - Shenghui Zhang 2020/08/06 BUR - J/psi v1 and v2, Psi(2S) R_AA projection minutes -Yi 2020/7/30 BUR - All minutes -Yi 2020/7/23 1) Update on J/psi in pAu - Rongrong Ma 2) BUR 2023-2025 - All Xin Dong's Snowmass presentation: link 2020/7/9 1) Update on D+- in Run16 - - Jan Vanek 2020/7/2 1) Update on inclusive J/Psi with dielectron channel at 200 GeV (run15) - Ziyue Zhang 2) Update on the study of trigger bias factor in pAu collisions - Rongrong Ma minutes - Sooraj 2020/6/25 1) Update on D+- in Run16 Au+Au@200GeV - Jan Vanek minutes - Zebo 2020/6/18 1) Brief update on run15 BEMC J/psi analysis - Ziyue Zhang (cancelled) 2020/6/11 1) Update on hot tower selection with Run15 pp and pAu BHT2 data - Zaochen Ye 2) Setup for full-event dAu - Lukas Kramarik minutes - Yi 2020/5/28 1) Update on inclusive J/psi analysis in pp and pAu @200 GeV (2015) - Ziyue Zhang 2) Run14+16 D+/- and preliminary plots - Jan Vanek 3) Analysis of sample of embedding to zerobias d+Au - Lukas Kramarik 4) NPE v2 non-flow estimation in Au+Au 54 GeV- Yuanjing Ji minutes - Sooraj 2020/5/21 1) Run14+16 D+/- - Jan Vanek 2) Update on Run15 J/psi->ee R_pAu - Ziyue Zhang 3) Run15 J/psi->ee R_pAu preliminary results - Ziyue Zhang 4) Update on trigger bias study for Run15 Jpsi->mu mu R_pAu - Rongrong Ma minutes - Zebo 2020/5/14 1) D+- in Run16 Au+Au@200GeV - Jan Vanek 2) Inclusive Jpsi analysis Run15 (ee) - Ziyue Zhang 3) Run15 Jpsi and Upsilon RpA - Zhenyu Ye 4) Hpt_HPE_Run12_pp_Shenghui_05142020.pdf - Shenghui Zhang minutes - Yi 2020/5/07 1) Systematic uncertainty for the trigger bias factor in pp collisions - Rongrong Ma 2) Study of J/psi production with jet activity - Hao Huang 3) Update on Au+Au 54GeV NPE reconstruction efficiency study - Yuanjing Ji 4) Update on inclusive Jpsi RpAu using Run15 data - Ziyue Zhang 2020/4/30 1) Trigger bias factor for J/psi R_pAu with MTD 2015 - Rongrong Ma 2) Update on D+/- in Run16 Au+Au - Jan Vanek 3) Update on J/psi in a jet - Qian Yang 4) Update on multiplicity distribution in pp for Upsilon analysis - Leszek Kosarzewski 5) QA of J/psi in run15 pp HT1 and HT2 - Ziyue Zhang minutes - Zebo 2020/4/23 1) J/psi in 54 GeV AuAu collisions - Kaifeng Shen 2) J/psi in Jet production - Qian Yang 3) The projection of Upsilon measurement during 2023-2025 - Rongrong Ma minutes - Yi 2020/4/16 1) Update on the D+- analysis in Run16 Au+Au 200GeV - Jan Vanek 2) Paper proposal on low energy NPE v2 analysis - Yuanjing Ji minutes - Sooraj 2020/4/9 1) HFT NPE RAA/RCP paper proposal - Matthew Kelsey minutes - Zebo 2020/4/2 1) Update on D+/- in Au+Au - Jan Vanek 2) Optimization of primary vertex selection J/psi and psi(2S) in 500 GeV p+p - Chan-Jui Feng 2020/3/11-15 STAR Collaboration Meeting (agenda) HF Parallel 1 HF Parallel 2 HF Summary report 2020/2/20 1) Update on D+/- in Au+Au - Jan Vanek 2020/2/13 1) Efficiency calculation for D+/- in Au+Au - Jan Vanek 2020/1/16 1) First look at J/psi and dielectron from Run18 Isobar runs - Kaifeng Shen # 2011 2011/12/20 Meeting Minutes Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 104850. Password: 7999 o Leszek: update in J/psi in p+p o Mustafa: embedding status report. 2011/12/13 Meeting Minutes Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 104850. Password: 7999 o Daniel Kikola: NPE v2 projection from run12 U+U. o Chris: low pt paper proposal o Anthony: discussion on 2008 d+Au reproduction o Mustafa: embedding status 2011/12/06 Meeting Minutes Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 104850. Password: 7999 o Daniel Kikola: NPE v2 projection from run12 U+U. o run12 trigger request: Wei and all o Mustafa: embedding status 2011/11/08 Meeting Minutes Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 104850. Password: 7999 2011/11/01 Meeting Minutes Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 104850. Password: 7999 2011/10/25 Meeting Minutes Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 104850. Password: 7999 2011/10/18 Meeting Minutes Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 104850. Password: 7999 2011/10/4 Meeting Minutes Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 104850. Password: 7999 2011/09/13 Meeting Minutes Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 104850. Password: 7999 2011/08/30 Meeting Minutes Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00margin-top: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 0.9emo Barbara: (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 104850. Password: 7999 2011/08/02 Meeting Minutes Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 104850. Password: 7999 2011/07/26 Meeting Minutes Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 104850. Password: 7999 2011/07/19 Meeting Minutes Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 101116. Password: 7999 • Embedding update 2011/07/12 Meeting Minutes Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 101116. Password: 7999 2011/06/21 Meeting Minutes Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 101116. Password: 7999 2011/06/14 Meeting Minutes Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 93871. Password: 7999 2011/05/10 Meeting Minutes Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 93871. Password: 7999 2011/05/03 Meeting Minutes Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 93871. Password: 7999 2011/04/26 Meeting Minutes Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 93871. Password: 7999 # 2012 2012/12/20 Time: 11:00 (EST), 8:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 15 1616 J/psi polarization paper proposal Barbara NPE in d+Au Olga 2012/12/13 Time: 11:00 (EST), 8:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 15 1616 NPE v2 update - Daniel 2012/12/06 Time: 11:00 (EST), 8:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 15 1616 2. Upsilon analysis update Anthony 3. J/psi polarization update Barbara 4. NPE v2 update Daniel 5. Upsilon-h correlation Matt 2012/11/06 Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 14 0849 1. D0 in 200 GeV U+U Zhenyu Ye 2. e-D0 analysis Witek Borowski 3. Upsilon-h analysis Matt Cervantes 3. embedding status update David and Mustafa 2012/10/31 Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 14 0849 1. Upsilon update Anthony 2. Upsilon update Kurt 2. Embedding update David, Mustafa 2012/10/09 Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 14 0849 1. NPE v2 Daniel Kikola 2. Embedding update David, Mustafa 2012/10/02 Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 14 0849 1. NPE v2 Daniel Kikola 2012/09/25 Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 14 0849 1. NPE v2 Daniel Kikola 2012/09/18 Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 14 0849 1. J/ps analysis in 500 GeV Qian Yang 2. run09 NPE analysis update Xin L, Yifei 3. update on NPE v2 Daniel Kikola 5. Hot datasets revisit all 2012/09/04 Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 14 0849 1. update on D->e and B-> e Yifei Zhang 2012/09/04 Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 14 0849 1. update on NPE v2 study. Dainel Kikola 2. update on J/psi in low energy Wangmeri Zha 3. embedding status David Tlusty and Mustafa. 2012/08/28 Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 14 0849 2. NPE v2 jet correlation background Daniel Kikola 3. NPE v2 paper proposal. Daniel Kikola 4. run09 NPE update Xin Li 4. Who will be the next embedding helper? 2012/07/31 Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 14 0849 . Password: 7999 http://evo.caltech.edu/evoNext/koala.jnlp?meeting=292I2iMeMt9M92Dv9aD9 1. NPE AuAu200 Wei/Wenquin 2.e-D0 in pp500 Witek 3.J/psi 62 Wangmei 4. NPE 62 Mustafa 5. NPE v2 Daniel 2012/07/24 Meeting Minutes Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 104850. Password: 7999 1. e-D0 analysis in 500 GeV Witold Borowski (conitue from last week) 2. Update on Upsilon analysis Anthony 3. NPE spectra 200 GeV Update Wenqin, Wei 4. NPE high pT v2 update Wenqin 5. NPE v2 update Daniel 6 NPE low energy spectra update Mustafa. 7. D0 analysis update David 2012/07/17 Meeting Minutes Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 104850. Password: 7999 1. D0 analysis using run10 and run11 data Yifei Zhang 2. D0 analysis in p+p 500 GeV David Tlusty 3. NPE flow analysis in Au+Au collisions Daniel Kikola 4. NPE analysis in 62 GeV Au+Au M. Mustafa 5. J/psi paper in p+p and d+Au Chris Powell 6. e-D0 analysis in 500 GeV Witold Borowski 5. Embedding status M. Mustafa 2012/07/10 Meeting Minutes Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 104850. Password: 7999 2012/07/03 Meeting Minutes Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 104850. Password: 7999 1. Lezsek: Low-pT J/psi 2012/06/26 Meeting Minutes Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 104850. Password: 7999 1. Jonathan: update on TMVA analysis. 2. Daniel: update on NPE v2 analysis 3. Lezsek: J-psi 4. Anthony: Upsilon 2012/06/19 Meeting Minutes Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 104850. Password: 7999 1. Leszek: nsigma_e cut effcieincy in p+p 200 GeV 2. Anothey: Upsilon update 3. Wei: run10 200 GeV NPE update. 4. Mustafa: Embedding update. 2012/06/12 Meeting Minutes Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 104850. Password: 7999 1. Anthony: effect of h+/h- issue on Upsilon. 2. Wei: run10 200 GeV NPE update. 3. Chris: d+Au and p+p J/psi paper proposal. 4. Leszek: nsigma_e cut effcieincy in p+p 200 GeV 5. Mustafa: Embedding update. 2012/06/01 Meeting Minutes Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 104850. Password: 7999 1. Anthony: Upsilon update 2. Mustafa, Jaro: Embedding update. 2012/05/22 Meeting Minutes Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 104850. Password: 7999 1. Anthony Upsilon Update 2. Leszek Kosarzevski J/Psi 3. Mustafa Mustafa embeding update 2012/05/07 Meeting Minutes Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 104850. Password: 7999 1. Olga Hajkova dAu Update 2. Mustafa Mustafa ele 62GeV QA 2012/05/01 Meeting Minutes Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 104850. Password: 7999 1) Andrew Peterson: Upsilon pT Spectrum and fit http://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/DrewPeterson_PWGHF_PhoneMeeting_May_1_2012_0.pdf 2). Chris Powell: Low pT J/psi paper proposal update http://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/proposal_3.pdf 3). Greg Wimsatt: http://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Wimsatt2012-04-28L0PotentialTriggerProblem_0.pdf 4). Pibero Djawotho http://cyclotron.tamu.edu/pibero/jets/2011.10.18/JetMeeting-2011.10.18.pdf 2012/04/02 Meeting Minutes Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 104850. Password: 7999 Agenda: 1) Matt: Upsilon correlation and spin update. 2) Hao: J/psi v2 update. 3) Wei: NPE purity. 4) Yifei: D0 signal in Run11 Au+Au. 2012/04/02 Meeting Minutes Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 104850. Password: 7999 1. Spiros: HFT plan for run13. 3. Daniel: NPE v2 request in Cu+Au. 5. Matt: Upsilon-h correlation update. 6. Wangmei: J/psi in 39 and 62 GeV Au+Au 2012/03/20 Meeting Minutes Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 104850. Password: 7999 1) Lijuan: MTD Run13 2) Wei: NPE Run10 3) David: D0,D* in pp500 4) Anthony: Upsilon in CuAu http://nuclear.ucdavis.edu/~kesich/protected/CuAuFeasibilty_HFWeekly_27Mar12.pdf 5) Mustafa: NPE 62 http://www.star.bnl.gov/protected/heavy/mstftsm/NPE/AuAu62GeV/NPE_AuAu62GeV_March_27th_2012.pdf 6) Matt Upsilon-h http://www.star.bnl.gov/protected/heavy/mcc/HFupdates/UpsilonHadron/HF_update19/mcc2012UpsHad_SA_HFupdate19.ppt 7) QM2012 abstracts: 1) Mustafa NPE http://www.star.bnl.gov/HyperNews-star/protected/get/heavy/3495.html 2) Yifei D in pp,AuAu 200 GeV http://www.star.bnl.gov/HyperNews-star/protected/get/heavy/3500/1.html 3) Anthony Upsilon http://www.star.bnl.gov/HyperNews-star/protected/get/heavy/3503.html 4) Wanqmei http://www.star.bnl.gov/HyperNews-star/protected/get/heavy/3504.html 5) David D,D* in pp200, pp500 (AuAu200?) http://www.star.bnl.gov/HyperNews-star/protected/get/heavy/3502/1.html poster: Daniel: http://www.star.bnl.gov/HyperNews-star/protected/get/heavy/3500.html 2012/03/20 Meeting Minutes Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 104850. Password: 7999 1) Discussion on the QM abstract. 2) J/psi v2 paper? 3) Other topics? 4) Embedding status 2012/03/13 Meeting Minutes Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 104850. Password: 7999 2012/03/06 Meeting Minutes Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 104850. Password: 7999 2012/02/28 Meeting Minutes Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 104850. Password: 7999 2012/02/21 Meeting Minutes Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 104850. Password: 7999 2012/02/14 Meeting Minutes Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 104850. Password: 7999 2012/02/07 Meeting Minutes Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 104850. Password: 7999 2012/01/24 Meeting Minutes Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 104850. Password: 7999 2012/01/24 Meeting Minutes Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 104850. Password: 7999 2012/01/17 Meeting Minutes Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 104850. Password: 7999 2012/01/10 Meeting Minutes Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 104850. Password: 7999 2012/01/03 Meeting Minutes Time: 13:00 (EST), 10:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 104850. Password: 7999 o Xin Li: Run11 200 GeV Au+Au QA. # 2013 2013/12/19 Time: 11:30 (EST), 8:30 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 15 2099 1) D* in pp 500 GeV David 2013/12/12 Time: 11:30 (EST), 8:30 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 15 2099 1) 2S+3S Upper Limit in AuAu 2010 - Anthony 2013/12/5 Time: 11:30 (EST), 8:30 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 15 2099 1) Upsilon in U+U - Robert 2) NPE in p+p (run 9) and d+Au (run 8) - Olga 3) NPE-h correlations in AuAu 200 GeV - Jay 2013/11/14 Time: 11:30 (EST), 8:30 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 15 2099 1). PID with TOF and dE/dx Lanny Ray 2). NPE spectra in run12 p+p Xiaozhi Bai 2013/10/31 Time: 11:30 (EST), 8:30 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 15 2099 1) NPE in p+p and d+Au 200 GeV - Olga 2)Purity for NPE in Au+Au 200 - 39 GeV - Daniel 2013/10/10 Time: 11:00 (EST), 8:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 15 2099 1) Upsilon spin alignment Matt 2) Upsilon embedding and E/p issue in U+U Robert 2013/10/03 Time: 11:00 (EST), 8:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 15 2099 1) NPE in d+Au (run 8) and p+p (run 9) Olga 2013/08/08 Time: 11:00 (EST), 8:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 15 2099 1). Update on Upsilon Anthony 2). J/psi in U+U Ota 3). J/psi in U+U Guannan 4). Update on J/psi in d+Au Leszek 2013/08/01 Time: 11:00 (EST), 8:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 15 2099 1) hadron nSigmaElectron calibration using ToF Daniel 2013/07/25 Time: 11:00 (EST), 8:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 15 2099 1) Update on upsilon 1S Anthony 2013/06/27 Time: 11:00 (EST), 8:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 15 2099 1) NPE in d+Au update Olga 2) Upsilon update Matt 2013/06/20 Time: 11:00 (EST), 8:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 15 2099 1) D* in p+p 500 GeV with BHT1 trigger Witak and David 2) update on J/psi in d+Au Leszek 3) Isolation of Upsilon 1S from the excited states Anthony 4) Upsilon in U+U 193 GeV Todd Kinghorn 2013/06/13 Time: 11:00 (EST), 8:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 15 2099 1) update on J/psi in d+Au Leszek 2013/06/06 Time: 11:00 (EST), 8:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 15 2099 1) update on J/psi in d+Au Leszek 2013/05/30 Time: 11:00 (EST), 8:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 15 2099 1). update on J/psi in d+Au Leszek 2013/05/16 Time: 11:00 (EST), 8:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 15 2099 1). Upsilin in U+U Collisions Robert Vertesi 2). Update on 62 GeV J/psi sys. errors. Wangmei 2013/05/16 Time: 11:00 (EST), 8:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 15 2099 1) D0 in U+U 193 GeV Zhenyu 2013/05/02 Time: 11:00 (EST), 8:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 15 2099 1) Upsilon updates Anthony 2013/04/25 Time: 11:00 (EST), 8:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 15 2099 2013/04/18 Time: 11:00 (EST), 8:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 15 2099 1). update on run11 J/psi analysis wangmei 2). Update on NPE analysis at 62.4 GeV Mustafa 3). J/psi v2 update Hao 4). discussion on systematic error Yifei 5). discussion on systematic error Daniel 6). Update on 500 GeV D meson analysis David 2013/04/11 Time: 11:00 (EST), 8:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 15 2099 1) MTD BUR request - Lijuan 2) J/psi in Au+Au 62 and 39 GeV: systematic errors - Wangmei 3) Efficiency uncertainties in D0 analysis - Yifei 2013/03/28 Time: 11:00 (EST), 8:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 15 2099 1) BUR 14/15 discussion with HFT Xin Dong 2) Run14 projection of J/psi Daniel 3) D0 Update Yifei 4) J/psi in U+U Ota 2013/03/21 Time: 11:00 (EST), 8:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 15 2099 2013/03/07 Time: 11:00 (EST), 8:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 15 2099 Upsilon: extending the AuAu measurement to |y| < 1.0 from |y| < 0.5 - Anthony Upsilon: RdAu and its implications for theory and other experiments - Manuel Calderón de la Barca Sánchez Low-pT J/psi in p+p run 9: Leszek 2013/02/07 Time: 11:00 (EST), 8:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 15 2099 2013/01/31 Time: 11:00 (EST), 8:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 15 2099 Upsilon paper: Update on the status Anthony J/psi polarization: Systematic error estimation of HT trigger efficiency Barbara NPE in d+Au: Update Olga J/psi in p+p 500 GeV: Embedding QA Qian 2013/01/24 Time: 11:00 (EST), 8:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 15 2099 Upsilon trigger request for p+p 500 GeV run 13 (Wei, Anthony ?) J/psi WWND talk and request for preliminary status of J/psi results (pT spectra, RAA, RCP) for Au+Au 39 and 62 GeV Wangmei Low-pT J/psi in p+p 200 GeV Leszek 2013/01/17 Time: 11:00 (EST), 8:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 15 2099 NPE in d+Au Olga NPE talk at Bormio 51st International Winter Meeting Olga Upsilon in d+Au: preliminary vs requested-to-be-preliminary Anthony Low-pT J/psi in p+p 200 GeV Leszek 2013/01/10 Time: 11:00 (EST), 8:00 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 15 2099 NPE v2 update Daniel D0 update Yifei # 2014 2014/12/11 1) D* in pp 500 GeV Run11 HT - David 2) J/psi-h correlation in pp 500 GeV Run11 HT - Hui Minutes - Zhenyu 2014/12/3 1) ccbar → e+μ simulation and projection for Au+Au 200 GeV with HFT - Bingchu Minutes 2014/11/20 1) NPE in most central Central U+U Collisions - Katarina 2) B->J/psi with HFT and MTD in MC Simulation - Bingchu Minutes - Zhenyu 2014/10/30 1) Upsilon spin alignment paper proposal - Matthew Minutes 2014/10/21 1) MTD data production strategy for Run 14 - Group discussion 2) Run14 PicoDst Structure Update - Rongrong 3) J/psi in Au+Au 200 GeV Run10 vs Run11 - Wangmei 4) Upslion in p+p 500 GeV - Leszek 5) NPE in p+p 200 GeV Run12 - Xiaozhi Minutes - Zhenyu 2014/10/16 1) MTD data production strategy for Run 14 - Rongrong 2) NPE in p+p 200 GeV - Xiaozhi Minutes 2014/10/11 1) PicoDst for 2014 data - Rongrong Meeting minutes - Zhenyu 2014/9/28 1) HQ2014 talk: Upsilon in p+p 500 GeV -Leszek 2014/9/4 1) Disk space -Xin et al. 2) Upsilon Spin Alignment -Matt Meeting minutes - Zhenyu 2014/8/28 1) Upsilon in p+p 500 GeV -Leszek Meeting minutes 2014/8/21 1) Upsilon Spin-Alignment - Matt Meeting minutes 2014/8/14 1) Upsilon in pp 500 GeV - Leszek Meeting Minutes - Zhenyu 2014/7/24 1) Upsilon in pp 500 GeV - Leszek 2014/7/17 1) Discussion on data production priorities 2) Upsilon spin alignment - Matt Meeting minutes 2014/7/10 1) discussion on data production priorities Meeting minutes 2014/7/3 1) discussion on data production priorities for QM15 Meeting minutes 2014/6/26 1) discussion on data production and physics priorities for QM15 2) pp200 baseline study - Long Meeting minutes - Zhenyu 2014/6/12 1) NPE pp run12 - Shenghui Meeting minutes 2014/6/5 Meeting minutes 2014/5/29 Meeting minutes - Zhenyu 2014/5/08 Time: 11:00 (EST), 8:00 (PST). EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 100 4409 Password: 7999 1) psi(2s) update run11 pp500 - Qian 2) D-meson update run12 pp200 - Mustafa 3) trigger efficiency run12 pp200 - Hao 4) J/psi update AuAu 200 GeV - Wangmei 2014/5/01 Time: 11:00 (EST), 8:00 (PST). EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 100 4409 Password: 7999 1) Upsilon updates in U+U - Robert Meeting minutes 2014/4/24 Time: 11:00 (EST), 8:00 (PST). EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 100 4409 Password: 7999 1) J/psi in AuAu 200 - Wangmei 2) D* in p+p 500 Run11 - David 3) D0/D* in p+p 200 Run12 - Hao 4) J/psi polarization in p+p 500 GeV Run11 - Barbara 5) Upsilon in U+U Run12 - Robert Meeting minutes - Zhenyu 2014/4/17 Time: 11:00 (EST), 8:00 (PST). EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 100 4409 Password: 7999 1) Upsilon in U+U - Robert 2) NPE in p+p 200 Run9 - Olga 3) Low pT J/psi in d+Au - Leszek 4) NPE in p+p 200 Run12 - Xiaozhi 5) J/psi in AuAu 200 - Wangmei 6) D0/D* in p+p 200 Run12 - Mustafa 7) D0/D* in p+p 200 Run12 - Hao 8) BUR15&16 - Daniel and all BUR15&16 with HFT - Xin 2014/4/10 Time: 11:00 (EST), 8:00 (PST). EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 100 4409 Password: 7999 Meeting minutes 2014/4/3 Time: 11:00 (EST), 8:00 (PST). EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 100 4409 Password: 7999 1) low pT NPE in pp 2009 - Olga 2) high pT NPE in pp 2012 - Xiaozhi Meeting minutes - Zhenyu 2014/3/27 Time: 11:00 (EST), 8:00 (PST). EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 686 8556 1) Upsilon in Au+Au - Anthony 2) Jpsi Polarization in pp500 - Barbara 3) D* in pp500 - David 2014/3/20 Time: 11:00 (EST), 8:00 (PST). EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 686 8556 1) Upsilon in Au+Au - Anthony 2014/3/13 Time: 11:00 (EST), 8:30 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 100 1507 1) Upsilon in Au+Au - Anthony 2) Heavy Flavor triggers for Au+Au run 14 3) Embedding QA for J/psi in U+U - Ota 2014/2/27 Time: 11:30 (EST), 8:30 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 100 1507 1) NPE in p+p 200 GeV run 12 - Xiaozhi Bai 2) Upsilon in U+U Robert 2014/1/16 Time: 11:30 (EST), 8:30 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 100 1507 1) Nonflow in NPE v2 in Au+Au 200 GeV - Daniel 2) Low-pT NPE in Au+Au 200 GeV run 10 - Kunsu 3) NPE in p+p 200 GeV run 12 - Xiaozhi Bai 4) J/psi to NPE contribution at 62.4GeV - Mustafa 2014/01/09 Time: 11:30 (EST), 8:30 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 100 1507 1) NPE in p+p 200 GeV run 12 - Xiaozhi Bai 2) J/psi in U+U 200 GeV - Ota 2014/01/02 Time: 11:30 (EST), 8:30 (PST). EVO password: heavy. EVO phone bridge #: +1 631 344 6100, +1 626 395 2112. Phone bridge Id: 15 2099 1) NPE in p+p run9 update Olga 2) D* in pp 500 GeV David # 2015 2015/12/17 2015/11/19 1) Jpsi-h correlation in Run11 p+p 500 GeV - Qian 2) D-h correlation in Run11 p+p 500 GeV systematic uncertainties - Long 3) NPE-h correlation in Run12 p+p 200 GeV - Zach minutes - Zhenyu 2015/11/05 1) D0 analysis in Run 12 Cu+Au collisions - Pavol minutes 2015/10/22 1) BEMC performance in 2014 HF PicoDsts - Rosi 2) Issues with in Au+Au 200 GeV run 14 data with HT trigger - Bingchu Minutes 2015/10/15 1) Data production priority 2) Paper plans 3) Paper Proposal D0 v2 - Hao 3) D-h correlation systematic uncertainties in Run11 p+p 500 GeV - Long Ma minutes - Zhenyu 2015/09/17 1) K0s spectra with the HTF and D0 double counting correction in Au+Au 200 GeV run 14 - Xin 2) Ds v2 and spectrum in Au+Au 200 GeV run 14 - Md. Nasim 3) Syst. uncertainties on J/psi->mu+mu- in Au+Au 200 GeV run 14 - Rongrong 4) J/psi->mu+mu- v2 and trigger efficiency in Au+Au 200 GeV run 14 - Takahito 5) J/psi v2 in Au+Au 200 GeV run 11 - Chensheng Minutes 2015/09/11 - Low pT NPE in p+p Run12 Minutes - Zhenyu 2015/09/11 1) Data Driven Fast Simulator - Mustafa. 2) Corrected K_s - Xin. 3) D^0 spectra - Guannan. 4) Ds analysis - Nasim 5) Upsilon in p+p 500 GeV - Leszek 2015/09/10 1) J/psi-h correlation in run12 pp 200 GeV - Bingchu 2) Run 12 p+p 200 GeV, NPE-h deltaPhi Correlations - Zach 3) J/psi and Upsilon analysis using MTD data - Rongrong 4) J/psi->mumu v2 - Takahito Minutes 2015/09/04 1) Systematic uncertainties for NPE from Run12 p+p 200 GeV MB - Shenghui 2) NPE from Run12 p+p 200 GeV - Xiaozhi 3) D0 Fast Simulation QA - Mustafa 4) Upsilon in p+p 500 GeV - Leszek Minutes - Zhenyu 2015/09/03 1) pre-QM meeting agenda 2) D0 v2 from event plane - Hao 3) D0 v2 from 2-particle correlation - Liang 4) PID efficiency and Double-Counting for D0 Reconstruction - Xin Minutes - Zhenyu 2015/08/27 J/psi in Au+Au 200 GeV run 14 with MTD -Rongrong J/psi v2 in Au+Au 200 GeV Run 11 - Chensheng MTD trigger efficiency study and J/psi->mumu v2 - Takahito D0 v2{2} in Au+Au 200 GeV run 14 - Liang Upsilon in p+p 500 run 11 - Leszek minutes 2015/08/20-22 HFT Analysis and HFT+ Proposal Workshop 2015/08/13 1) NPE analysis in central UU collisions - Katarina 2) D0 v2 - Liang minutes 2015/08/06 1) Ds efficiency and Rcp calculation- Nasim 2) Non-flow in Run14 D0 v2 - Malong 3) NPE analysis in central UU collisions - Katarina 4) D meson v2 - Michael Minutes - Zhenyu 2015/07/30 1) background sources from angular correlations in the D0 invariant mass spectrum - Alexander 2) NPE in central UU collisions - Katarina 3) reconstruction efficiency of dimoun events - Rongrong 4) MTD partial tracking and trigger efficiency - Takahito minutes 2015/07/23 1) Non-flow effect on D0 v2 - Hao 2) Vertex resolution studies with KFVertex and Minuit Vertex - Guannan 3) D0 Tree with KFVertex - Guannan Minutes - Zhenyu 2015/07/16 1) 2) Mixed event maker in RNC HF library - Micheal 3) K0S Efficiency calculation using toy MC model - Nasim 4) Purit estimation for NPE v2 in Au+Au 200, 62.4 and 39 GeV - Daniel 5) D0 foreground in Au+Au 200 GeV - Mustafa minutes 2015/07/09 1) NPE in central UU - Katarina 2) trigger efficiency correction in D-hadron correlation study - Long Ma 3) update on Ds meson analysis - Long Zhou minutes 2015/07/02 1) Run14 MTD results projection and data production strategy - Lijuan 2) Muon identification using J/psi signal in p+p 500 GeV - Te-Chuan/Yi Yang 3) Efficiency calculation for Ds in Au+Au 200 GeV run 14 using Toy Monte-Carlo simulation - Md. Nasim 4) J/psi in Run12 central U+U collisions - Jana 5) KFVertex and Hijing Simulation - Liang He 6) Upsilon in Run11 p+p 500 GeV - Leszek Minutes - Zhenyu 2015/06/26 Hard Probes 2015 talk - Li Yi J/psi vs event activity in p+p 500 GeV: analysis updateHard Probes 2015 talk - Rongrong D0 v2{2} in Au+Au 200 GeV - Liang He J/psi polarization in p+p 500 GeV - Barbara Minutes 2015/06/18 J/psi in BES paper status - Wangmei NPE in Run10 Au+Au 62.4 GeV paper status - Mustafa Event Plane Calibration status for Run14 MTD J/psi v2 - Takahito D0 NMFs from Run14 - Mustafa Mixed Event package for the RNC-HF analysis library as well as a quick case study using Mixed Event with D0 - Michael KFVertex resolution and D0 correlation v2 - Liang tracking/matching efficiency study in D triggered correlation in p+p collisions at 500GeV - Long Ma D0 reconstruction with KFParticle - Amilkar minutes 2015/06/11 1) Low pT NPE in Run12 p+p 200 GeV - Shenghui 2) NPE-h in Run11 p+p 500 GeV - Wei Li 3) Upsilon in Run12 U+U 193 GeV - Robert 4) J/psi from MTD in Run13 pp 500 GeV - Rongrong 5) e-mu correlation from HT and emu triggers in Run14 Au+Au 200 GeV - Bingchu 6) Run14 MTD data production strategy - Lijuan 7) KFVertex refitting I - Liang 8) KFVertex refitting II - Guannan 9) D0 Rcp Extraction - Mustafa Minutes - Zhenyu 2015/05/21 1) Upsilon polarization paper proposal - Saskia 2) dsaAdc in the trigger simulator - Barbara Minutes 2015/05/14 1) Introduction of D0 correlated v2 study - Leon 2) vertex refitting - Liang 3) Update centrality definition for Run14 AuAu200GeV - Guanna 4) Update on Charm correlation in pp 500 GeV - Long Ma 5) update on D+ and D- as well as some studies using a toy mc - Michael, Mustafa 6) the dsmAdc issue - Barbara 7) D0 reconstruction raw signals - Guannan minutes 2015/05/07 1) MTD Data production - Lijuan 2) PicoDST production - Xin 3) J/psi polarization analysis in pp 500 GeV - Barbara 4) D0 reconstruction using KFParticle - Amilkar Minutes - Zhenyu 2015/4/30 1) picoDst production for MTD data - Rongrong 2) J/psi v2 analysis for Run11 - Zhao 3) J/psi analysis in central U+U collisions - Jana 4) KF vertex refitting - Liang Minutes 2015/04/23 1) Ds in Au+Au 200 GeV run 14 - Nasim 2) picoDST QA and Centrality Definition in Au+Au 200 GeV run 14 - Guannan 3) KF vertex refitting - Liang 4) Prospects of B-jet measurements with HFT - Yaping Minutes - Zhenyu 2015/04/16 1) Gamma Conversion in Au+Au 14.5 GeV Run 14 - Mengzhen 2) E/p corrections of the Upsilons in U+U 193 GeV - Robert 3) D0 identification using TMVA - Jonathan 4) Charm correlation study with Pythia simulation -Long 5) D+/D- analsis in AU+Au 200 GeV with HFT - Michael 6) KF vertex re-fittiong - Liang Minutes 2015/04/09 1) NPE v2 in Au+Au run 10 - purity vs momentum (postponed) - Daniel 2) NPE low-pT in p+p 200 GeV run 12 - Shenghui 3) Update on J/psi in BES paper status - Wangmei 4) B->J/psi projection for BUR16/17 - Bingchu 5) D analysis with HFT in Au+Au 200 GeV run 14 - Long 6) How to run simulations with HF particles embedded in a hijing background - Michael Minutes - Zhenyu 2015/04/02 1) Beam User Request 2016-2017 - Unofficial information: Option 1: 22-week RHIC run in 2016, and no run in 2017, Option 2: 22-week runs in both 2016 and 2017 2) D0 v2 in Au+Au 200 GeV run 14 - Hao 3) Update on the picoD0Production and analysis code - Mustafa 4) Software package for general HF analysis with picoDsts - Jochen 5) Update on Upsilon Polarization paper proposal - Saskia and Yanfang 6) Update on Upsilon in U+U paper proposal - Robert 7) NPE pT spectrum in Au+Au 200 GeV run 10 - Kunsu Minutes 2015/03/26 1) Run14 Au+Au picoDst production - Round table discussion 2) J/psi polarizaition in pp 500 GeV Run 11 - Barbara 3) NPE in pp 200 GeV Run12 - Xiaozhi Minutes - Zhenyu 2015/03/19 1) Upsilon 2S/3S in U+U Run 12 - Robert 2) Upslion Npart weighting - Robert 3) Exercise with Kpis mass - Leon 4) D0 in Au+Au run 14 - Mustafa 5) PicoDst production for the Run14 AuAu200 GeV - Xin 6) J/psi production and J/psi-h correlation in p+p at 200 GeV - Bingchu 7) J/psi analysis using Run13 pp 500 GeV - Rongrong Minutes 2015/03/12 (postponed to next week) 1) D0/D* in pp 500 GeV Run11 Paper Proposal - David 2) Upsilon 2S/3S in U+U Run 12 - Robert 2015/03/05 1) Upsilon in U+U - Robert paper proposal analysis update 2) J/psi pp reference at 39 and 62.4 GeV - Wangmei 3) Au+Au 200 GeV run 14 QA - Kpi pairs - Liang 2015/02/26 1) Event-Plane Dependent NPE-h correlations in AuAu 200 GeV - Jay 2) NPE in most central Central U+U Collisions - Katarina Minutes - Zhenyu 2015/02/12 1) Primary Vertex Refitting for D Meson Simulation Studies - Mikhail 2) D0 Reconstruction Efficiency in Simulations with HFT in 200GeV p+p Collisions - Liang 3) Upsilon in U+U 193 GeV Run12 - Robert 4) D* in pp 500 GeV Run11 - David Minutes - Zhenyu 2015/1/15 1) J/psi in pp 500 GeV Run13 MTD - Rongrong 2) J/psi and psi(2s) in pp 500 GeV Run11 - Qian Minutes - Zhenyu # 2016 2016/12/22 1) Consistency check between D0 and NPE v2 - Long Zhou 2) Run11 Au+Au Upsilon->ee - Zaochen ye minutes - Zhenyu 2016/12/15 One-slide status for QM2017 Alena Harlenderova Guannan Xie Takahito Todoroki Jakub Kvapil Zac Miller Bingchu Huang Pavol Federic Miroslav Saur Liang He Alex Jentsch Xiaolong Chen Long Zhou Zaochen Ye Kunsu OH Xinjie Huang minutes - Rongrong 2016/11/30 1) Upsilon in p+p 500 GeV - Leszek Kosarzeski minutes - Zhenyu 2016/10/20 1) Upsilon in p+p 500 GeV - Leszek Kosarzeski2016/10/27 1) QA of Run16 st_hlt - Sooraj Radhakrishnan minutes - Rongrong 2016/10/20 1) Upsilon in p+p 500 GeV - Leszek Kosarzeski minutes - Rongrong 2016/10/06 1) Combined Upsilon analysis - Shuai Yang 2) Jpsi and Upsilon embedding in Run11 AuAu 200 GeV - Zaochen Ye minutes - Rongrong 2016/09/29 1) Run15 p+Au st_physics data QA for NPE/Jpsi/Upsilon measurements - Zach 2) Run15 p+p 200 Jpsi polarization in dimuon channel - Zhen minutes - Zhenyu 2016/09/22 1) Run15 centrality study using MB data - Yanfang Liu minutes - Rongrong 2016/09/08 1) QA for Run15 pAu (MTD) - Takahito 2) J/psi v2 in Run12 U+U - Alena 3) Upslion in Run11 and Run14 Au+Au (BHT) - Zaochen minutes - Zhenyu 2016/09/01 1) QA for Run15 st_physics pp/pA - Zachariah Miller 2) Non-prompt Jpsi using Run14 AuAu - Bingchu Huang 3) Quarkonium in Run15 pAu (BHT) - Zaochen Ye minutes - Rongrong 2016/08/25 1) Vertex distribution in Run15 pp/pA - Yanfang 2) Upsilon in Run14 AuAu dielectron - Zaochen minutes - Zhenyu 2016/08/11 1) Run-dependent QA of MTD events in Run15 pp 200 GeV - Takahito Todoroki minutes - Rongrong 2016/08/04 1) EvtGen Implementation in STAR - Zhenyu minutes - Zhenyu 2016/7/28 1) Centrality definition for Run14 AuAu 200 GeV, P16id - Xiaolong Chen 2) Jpsi in Run15 pp: how to determine the PID cuts range - Yanfang Liu minutes - Rongrong 2016/7/21 1) Ds in Run14 Au+Au - Nasim minutes - Zhenyu 2016/7/14 1) OSU collaboration meeting 2) J/psi efficiency from PID cuts - Yanfang minutes - Rongrong 2016/07/07 1) data production priority and QM17 topics 2) Run14 Jpsi->dielectron embedding - Zaochen 3) PWG_TASK disk space request - Bingchu 4) Jpsi in Run15 p+p - Takahito 2016/6/23 1) NPE-h in Run11 pp 500 GeV - Wei Li 2) Jpsi x-sec from Run13 pp 500 GeV MTD data - Te-Chuan Huang 3) Jpsi in Run12 Cu+Au - Pavla Federicova 4) D+/- in Run14 Au+Au (P16id) - Jakub Kvapil 5) Jpsi in Run15 pp 200 GeV MTD - Yanfang Liu 6) Upsilon in pp 500 GeV - Leszek Kosarzewski 2016/6/16 1) Jpsi v2 from Run14 MTD data - Takahito Todoroki 2) Jpsi RAA from Run14 MTD data - Rongrong Ma 3) D0 v3 from Run14 AuAu HFT data - Michael Lominitz 4) Jpsi and Upsilon from Run14 AuAu BHT data - Zaochen Ye 5) NPE-h in Run11 p+p 500 GeV - Wei Li 6) Low-pT Jpsi enhancement - Wangmei 2016/6/9 1) D0 v2 with 2PC (P16id) - Liang He 2) Low-pT Jpsi enhancement in AuAu and UU - Wangmei 3) Jpsi v2 using Run14 MTD data - Takahito Todoroki 4) Jpsi cross section using Run14 MTD data - Rongrong Ma minutes - Rongrong 2016/6/2 1) Jpsi-h correlation in Run12 pp200 - Bingchu Huang 2) Jpsi yield vs event activity in Run12 pp200 - Bingchu Huang 3) Jpsi cross section in Run13 pp500 using MTD - Te-Chuan Huang minutes - Rongrong 2016/5/26 1) Jpsi polarization in Run12 pp200 - Siwei Luo 2) Jpsi-h correlation in Run11 pp500 - Qian Yang 3) Jpsi yield vs event activiity in Run12 pp200 - Bingchu Huang 4) MTD J/psi analysis in Run14 AuAu200 - Rongrong Ma 5) MTD Upsilon analysis in Run14 AuAu200 - Xinjie Huang 6) D0 v3 in Run14 AuAu200 - Michael Lomintz 2016/5/19 1) MTD J/psi analysis in Run14 AuAu200 - Rongrong Ma 2) D0 v2 in Run14 AuAu 200 (P16id) - Michael Lomnitz 3) J/psi polarization in pp 200 - Siwei Luo 4) Ds reconstrcution in Run14 AuAu 200 (P16id) - Long Zhou 5) Ds reconstruction in Run14 AuAu 200 (P16id) - Nasim minutes - Rongrong 2016/05/12 1) J/psi polarization in Run12 pp200 - Siwei 2016/5/5 1) NPE in Run14 AuAu 200 - Shenghui 2) J/psi polarization in pp 200 - Siwei 3) D0 reconstruction in Run14 AuAu 200 (P16id) - Mustafa minutes - Rongrong 2016/4/28 1) NPE v2 in 200, 62, 39 GeV - Daniel 2) Combinatorial Background Method study - Wangmei minutes - Zhenyu 2016/4/21 1) Jpsi event activities in Run12 pp 200 - Bingchu 2) QA of Run15 pp200 for D0 analysis - Pavol minutes - Rongrong 2016/4/14 1) sQM plan - Wangmei 2) Jpsi polarization in Run12 pp200 - Siwei minutes - Zhenyu 2016/3/31 1) New production priorities 2) Run14 D0 production status - Guannan 3) J/psi-hadron correlation in Run13 - Te-Chuan minutes - Rongrong 2016/3/24 1) Plan for MTD talk at sQM - Takahito minutes - Rongrong 2016/3/10 1) Updates of Upsilon in UU 193 GeV (already in GPC) - Robert minutes - Zhenyu 2016/3/3 1) D0 v3 in Run14 Au+Au 200 GeV - Michael 2) bug found in StPxlRawHitMaker - Hao minutes - Rongrong 2016/2/11 1) D0 v2 in Au+Au 200 GeV run 14 - Hao 2) High tower trigger rates in run 16 - Zhenyu 3) D0 v3 in Au+Au 200 GeV run 14 -Michael minutes 2016/2/4 1) NPE Raa in Run12 central U+U 193 GeV - Katarina minutes - Zhenyu # 2017 2017/12/21 1) Update on Upsilon production in p+p 500 GeV - Leszek Kosarzewski 2) D+/- in d+Au collisions - Georgy Ponimatkin minutes - Petr 2017/12/14 1) J/psi polarization using Run15 MTD data - Zhen Liu minutes - Rongrong 2017/11/30 1) Latest results with KF Particle Finder - Maksym Zyzak 2) KF-Particle test results from run14 - Guannan Xie 3) Paper proposal: J/psi polarization in 200 GeV p+p with MTD - Zhen Liu 4) Update on Paper proposal: J/psi polarization in 200 GeV p+p with run12 data (ee) - Siwei Luo 5) Upsilon vs. event activity - Leszek Kosarzewski minutes - Zebo 2017/11/16 1) Systematic uncertainties study for D0 paper - Guannan Xie 2) Upsilon event activity studies - Leszek Kosarzewski minutes- Petr 2017/11/09 1) Upsilon in Run14 200 GeV AuAu via di-electron channel - Oliver Matonoha 2) MB events estimation for BBCMB trigger in Run15 200 GeV pp - Zaochen Ye minutes - Rongrong 2017/11/02-04 Analysis Meeting 2017/10/26 1) Systematic uncertainties study for Run 12 J/psi polarization - Siwei Luo 2) Systematic uncertainties study for Run 14 MTD J/psi - Rongrong Ma minutes - Zebo 2017/10/12 1) Upsilon production in p+p 500 GeV - trigger efficiency studies - Leszek Kosarzewski 2) Jpsi via the dimuon channel in Run14 200 GeV (slides 33+) - Rongrong Ma minutes - Petr 2017/10/12 1) Jpsi via the dimuon channel in Run14 200 GeV (slides 1-33) - Rongrong Ma minutes - Rongrong 2017/10/5 1) Update on D0 v1 for Run14+16 AuAu 200 GeV - Subash Singha 2) Trigger bias study for J/psi and Y in Run15 pp 200 GeV - Zaochen Ye 2017/9/28 1) Systematic uncertainty study for J/psi polarization in run15 p+p - Zhen Liu 2) Multiplicity dependence of J/psi and D0 trigger bias - Takahito Todoroki 3) Simulation of VPD efficiency in run15 p+p - Takahito Todoroki minutes - Zebo 2017/9/14 1) Run14 D0 topological cuts re-tuning - Xiaolong Chen 2) Upsilon vs. event activity from Run11 pp500 - Leszek Kosarzewski minutes - Rongrong 2017/9/7 1) J/psi v2 in Run12 UU 193 GeV - Alena Harlenderova 2) Embedding with HFT and open charm in y2016 data sample - Maksym Zyzak 3) Upsilon vs event activity from Run11 pp500 - Leszek Kosarzewski minutes - Zhenyu minutes - Rongrong 2017/8/31 1) J/psi v2 in Run12 UU 193 GeV - Alena Harlenderova minutes - Zhenyu 2017/8/24 1) Tuning Lc cuts with Run14 AuAu 200 GeV - Sooraj Radhakrishnan 2) Ds with Run14 AuAu 200 GeV - Md. Nasim minutes - Rongrong 2017/8/17 1) Trigger bias study for jpsi events for Run15 pAu200 - Takahito Todoroki 2) Toy MC study for J/psi polarization - Rongrong Ma 3) J/psi polarization in Run15 pp 200 GeV - Zhen Liu minutes - Zhenyu 2017/8/10 1) D* from Run14 AuAu 200 GeV - Yuanjiang Ji 2) Lc from Run14 AuAu 200 GeV - Miroslav Simko 3) J/psi v2 in Run12 UU 193 GeV - Alena Harlenderova 4) Toy MC study for J/psi polarization - Rongrong Ma 5) J/psi polarization in Run15 pp 200 GeV - Zhen Liu minutes - Rongrong 2017/8/3 1) Total charm cross section in AuAu200 - Xiaolong Chen 2) Upsilon vs event activity from Run11 pp500 - Leszek Kosarzewski 3) Centrality for Run15 pAu 200 GeV - Yanfang Liu minutes - Zhenyu 2017/7/20 1) Trigger bias study for jpsi events for Run15 pp200 - Takahito Todoroki 2) Ds v2 for Run14 AuAu 200 GeV - Md Nasim 3) D0 v1 for Run14+16 AuAu 200 GeV - Subash Singha minutes - Rongrong 2017/7/7 1) Trigger bias study for Run15 pp200 - Takahito Todoroki 2) Ds v2 from Run14 AuAu200 - Md. Nasim 3) D0 v1 from Run14+16 AuAu200 - Sooraj Radhakrishnan 4) D0 v1 from Run16 AuAu200 - Subash Singha minutes - Zhenyu 2017/6/29 1) Paper proposal: low pT j/psi production in AuAu 200 GeV - Wangmei Zha 2) Centrality study in Run15 pAu - Yanfang Liu 3) Run14 AuAu D0 v1 - Subhash Singha minutes - Rongrong 2017/6/22 1) D0 v1 analysis with Run14+16 AuAu - Sooraj Radhakrishnan minutes - Zhenyu 2017/6/15 1) D0 v1 analysis in Run14 AuAu - Subhash & Nasim 2) D0 v1 analysis in Run14+16 AuAuSooraj Radhakrishnan 3) Vertex resolution correction for Ds in Run14 AuAu - Md. Nasim minutes - Rongrong 2017/6/8 1) MTD trigger efficiency - Rongrong minutes - Zhenyu 2017/6/1 1) Systematic uncertainty for Run12 pp Jpsi polarization - Siwei Luo minutes - Rongrong 2017/5/11 1) Centrality for 2015 p+Au 200 GeV - Yangfang Liu minutes - Zhenyu 2017/5/4 1) Vertex reconstruction for 2016 d+Au200 GeVSooraj Radhakrishnan minutes - Zhenyu 2017/4/27 1) Upsilon event activity study - Leszek Kosarzewski minutes - Rongrong 2017/4/20 1) Centrality for 2015 p+Au 200 GeV - Yanfang Liu minutes - Zhenyu 2017/4/13 1) Ds efficiency using FastSim package - Md. Nasim minutes - Rongrong 2017/3/23 1) Request for storing Run16 KPiX tree on RCF - Shusu Shi 2) Jpsi RpA using Run15 MTD data - Takahito Todoroki 3) Upsilon di-electron analysis in Run14 AuAu - Oliver Matonoha minutes - Rongrong 2017/3/16 1) J/psi polarization in Run12 pp - Siwei Luo minutes - Zhenyu 2017/3/9 1) J/psi polarization in Run15 pp/A (MTD) - Zhen Liu minutes - Rongrong 2017/3/2 1) D0 v1 from Run14 Au+Au - Subhash/Nasim minutes - Zhenyu 2017/2/23 1) pA centrality 2017/2/16 1) D*-h in Run11 pp500 - Long Ma 2) Lc in Run16 AuAu200 - Sooraj minutes - Zhenyu 2017/1/26 session 1-2 (Thursday) 1) Charmonium in Run15 pp/pAu - Takahito Todoroki 2) Upsilon in Run14 AuAu dimuon - Xinjie Huang 3) Upsilon in Run11 AuAu and Run15 pp/pAu - Zaochen Ye 4) B->D in Run14 AuAu - Xiaolong Chen 5) B->Jpsi in Run14+16 AuAu - Bingchu Huang minutes - Zhenyu 6) Ds in Run14 AuAu - Long Zhou 7) NPE in Run14 AuAu - Shenghui Zhang 8) B/D->e in Run14 AuAu - Xiaozhi Bai 9) B/D->e in Run14 AuAu - Kunsu Oh minutes - Rongrong session 3-4 (Friday) 10) D and Lc in Run14 AuAu - Guannan Xie 11) Ds in Run14 AuAu - Md Nasim 12) D+/- in Run14 AuAu - Jakub Kvapil 13) D0-h in Run14 AuAu - Alex Jentsch minutes - Zhenyu 14) D0 in Run12 Cu+Au - Miro Saur 15) Jpsi v2 in Run12 U+U - Alena Harlenderova 16) Upsilon in Run11 p+p 500 - Leszek Kosarzewski 17) Charmonion in Run15 p+p/Au - Takahito Todoroki minutes - Rongrong 2017/1/19 1) Jpsi event activity in Run12 pp 200 GeV - Bingchu Huang 2) NPE in Run15 pp/pAu 200 GeV - Zach Miller 3) NPE without using HFT in Run15 AuAu 200 GeV - Shenghui Zhang 4) D0 v3 with HFT in Run14 AuAu 200 GeV - Michael Lomnitz 5) Jpsi polarization in Run 12 pp 200 GeV - Siwei Luo 6) Centrality study for Run15 pAu 200 GeV - Yanfang Liu minutes - Rongrong 2017/1/12 1) J/psi and Psi(2s) from Run15 p+p and p+Au dimuon - Takahito 2) Upsilon from Run15 p+p and p+Au and Run11 Au+Au dielectron - Zaochen 3) D0 and Lc from Run14 Au+Au - Guannan 4) D0-h correlation from Run14 Au+Au - Alex 5) B->e from Run14 Au+Au - Xiaozhi 6) Upsilon from Run14+16 Au+Au dimuon - Xinjie 7) Upsilon from Run11 p+p 500 - Leszek 8) Upsilon from Run11 Au+Au - Zaochen minutes - Zhenyu 2017/1/5 1) J/psi v2 in U+U collisions - Alena Harlenderova 2) Non-prompt J/psi in Au+Au collisions - Bingchu Huang 3) J/psi event activity in Run12 pp 200 GeV - Bingchu Huang 4) Upsilon in Run15 pp and pA collisions - Zaochen Ye minutes - Rongrong # 2018 2018/12/20 1) Update on Upsilon in p+p - Leszek Kosarzewski minutes - Zebo STAR 2018 Winter Analysis meeting (12/11-12/14) https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/meetings/star-winter-analysis-meeting/ HF Parallel 1: https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/meetings/star-winter-analysis-meeting/heavy-flavor HF Parallel 2: https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/meetings/star-winter-analysis-meeting/heavy-flavor-0 2018/11/29 1) MTD response efficiency in 2016 cosmics - Rongrong Ma 2) Update on J/psi polarization - Zhen Liu 3) Update on the single electron analysis - Matthew Kelsey 4) D+- analysis in Au+Au 200 GeV - Robert Licenik minutes - Petr 2018/11/01 1) Update on Lc analysis - Sooraj Radhakrishan 2) Run14 J/psi Raa analysis - Rongrong Ma minutes - Rongrong 2018/10/25 1) Update on D0 spectra paper - Guannan Xie minutes - Zebo 2018/10/18 1) Upsilon->mumu l in Run14 Au+Au @ 200 GeV - Zhe-Jia Zhang 2) Update on the D0 v1 analysis - Subhash Singha 3) Update on D0 v3 analysis in 2016 + 2014 Au+Au@200GeV -Yue Liang minutes - Petr 2018/10/11 1) Ds production in Run16 - Chuan Fu 2) Update on D* analysis - Yuanjing Ji 3) picoDst production of Run15 pAu st_mtd data - Yanfang Liu minutes - Rongrong 2018/10/4 1) psi(2S)->J/psi+pipi in 500 GeV p+p - Chan-Jui Feng 2) Run13 J/psi->mumu update - Te-Chuan Huang minutes - Zebo 2018/09/27 1) Update on the MB embedding for J/psi -> mumu analysis - Rongrong Ma minutes - Petr 2018/09/20 1) Electron PID using a likelihood classifier - Matthew Kelsey minutes - Rongrong 2018/13/9 1) Update on run14 MTD J/psi Raa Rongrong Ma minutes - Petr 2018/9/6 1) Update on Run14+16 Upsilon->mumu - Pengfei Wang minutes - Zebo 2018/8/9 1) Run15 Upsilon RpA - Zaochen Ye minutes - Rongrong 2018/8/2 1) Update on D+- in Run16 Au+Au@200 GeV - Jan Vanel 2) Status report of D* in Run16 Au+Au@200 GeV - Yuanjing Ji minutes - Zebo 2018/7/5 1) Update on run13 MTD J/psi cross-section - Te-Chuan Huang minutes - Zebo 2018/6/14 1) Run15 pAu Embedding Comparison - Yanfang Liu 2) Update on J/psi->mu+mu in Run13 pp510 - Te-Chuan Huang minutes - Petr 2018/6/7 1) Update on run14 MTD J/psi Raa - Rongrong Ma minutes - Zebo 2018/5/31 1) Update on KFParticleFinder - Maksym Zyzak 2018/05/24 1) Update on pp reference for Run14 Jpsi Raa - Rongrong Ma minutes - Rongrong 2018/05/03 1) RUN15 pp/pAu NPE -Kunsu 2)Update on Open HF semileptonic decays - Yifei 3)HFT effects on Upsilon reconstruction - Oliver 4)Update on D+ in AuAu run16 - Jan 5)MTD matching study - Rongrong minutes-Petr 2018/05/01 1) D0 in dAu - Lukas 2) Lc analysis - Sooraj 3) D0 v2 in Run16 - Liang 4) D+/- in Run16 - Jan 5) Upsilon in Run14 BEMC - Oliver 6) D0 v1 - Subhash 7) D* in Run14 - Yuanjing 8) Upsilon from MTD - Pengfei 9) Lc+/Lc- - Miro 10) Update for D0 paper - Guannan minutes - Petr 2018/04/26 1) Run16 D0 measurements - Xiaolong Chen minutes - Rongrong 2018/04/19 1) D0 v2, v3 in Run16 Au+Au - Yue Liang 2) Run11 HT18 run-by-run QA - Shuai Yang 3) Upsilon from MTD in Run 16 Au+Au - Pengfei Wang, Shuai Yang minutes - Zebo 2018/04/12 1) D+/- production in run16 AuAu - Jan Vanek 2) D* production in run14 AuAu - Yuanjing Ji 3) Update - bottom analysis - Yifei Zhang minutes - Rongrong 4) Signal extraction of Upsilon in run14 AuAu BHT2 - Oliver Matonoha 5) Update on the D0 v1 analysis - Subhash Singha 6) Status of my D0 in dAu - Lukas Kramarik minutes - Petr 2018/04/05 1) Systematics for J/psi in Run11 pp 500 GeV - Qian Yang 2) NPE in Run15 pp/pAu - Kunsu OH 3) Upsilon in Run16 AuAu 200 GeV (MTD) - Pengfei Wang minutes - Rongrong 2018/03/29 1) Summary of HFT embedding tuning and validation - Sooraj Radhakrishnan 2) Run16 Upsilon reconstruction efficiency - Pengfei Wang minutes - Zebo 2018/03/22 1)Upsilon->ee reconstruction efficiency and systematics in BHT2 AuAu14 - Oliver Matonoha minutes -Petr 2018/03/15 1) Run16 fastsim and D0 - Xiaolong Chen 2) J/psi polarization measurement in Run12 - Siwei Luo minutes -Petr 2018/03/01 1) MTD muon PID efficiency for Run15 pp & pAu - Rongrong Ma 2) Trigger bias factor for Run13 MTD Jpsi analysis - Te-Chuan Huang minutes - Rongrong 2018/02/22 1) D0 v1 in 200 GeV Au+Au - Liang He minutes - Zebo 2018/02/15 1) Upsilon->ee reconstruction efficiency study in AuAu14 BHT2 - Oliver Matonoha 2) QA of dAu data - Lukas Kramarik minutes - Petr 2018/02/08 1) Paper proposal: Jpsi cross section in p+p 500 GeV - Te-Chuan minutes - Rongrong 2018/02/01 1) Trigger bias of J/psi in Run15 p+p and p+Au - Takahito Todoroki 2) Update on Run14 MTD J/psi study - Rongrong Ma minutes - Zebo 2018/01/24 - 28 STAR Collaboration Meeting 2018/01/18 1) Vz diff cut study in dAu 200 GeV for picoDst production - Liang He 2018/01/11 1) Centrality determination for Run14 prod_high - Xiaolong Chen minutes - Rongrong 2018/1/4 1) Bad run determination for Run14 AuAu 200 GeV MTD data - Rongrong Ma 2) D0 v1 with Au+Au Run14 and Run16 data - Liang He minutes - Zebo # 2019 2019/12/19 1）D+/- in Run16 Au+Au - Jan Vanek 2) J/psi in Jet with Run11 pp 500 - Qian Yang 3) Glauber MC for dAu centrality - Lukas 2019/12/12 1) uncertainty estimation of p+p reference for Upsilon measurements -Pengfei 2019/10/23 1) Update on the analysis on single electrons with HFT - Matthew Kelsey 2) Update on J/Psi and Psi(2S) via the dimuon channel - Feng Chan-Jui 3) Update on D0 v2 event shape analysis- Yue Liang 4) Update on J/Psi RpA analysis in centrality bins- Yanfang Liu minutes - Sooraj 2019/10/17 1) Systematic uncertainty of J/psi in pAu - Yanfang Liu 2) Systematic uncertainty of single electron in Au+Au with HFT - Matthew Kelsey 3) Update on D0 in d+Au - Lukas Kramarik minutes - Zebo 2019/10/10 1) D0 v2 with event-shape-engineering - Yue Liang 2) Update on c/b NPE anlaysis - Matthew Kelsey 3) Bottom in Run14 Central-5 Au-Au - Yingjie Zhou 4) Improvement on J/psi signal extraction - Rongrong Ma 5) Update on D0 in d+Au - Lukas Kramarik minutes -Petr 2019/10/03 1) Run 16 D+/- update - Jan Vanek 2) Update on NPE v2 in 54 GeV Au+Au - Yuanjing Ji 3) HF electron analysis with Run 16 Au+Au - Matthew Kelsey 4) D0 production in d+Au - Lukas Kramarik 5) Paper proposal for Run15 Jpsi RpA analysis - Rongrong Ma minutes - Sooraj 2019/9/26 1) NPE in Run16 with HFT - Matthew Kelsey 2) Jpsi->mumu in Run15 p+p - Rongrong Ma 2019/9/19 1) Bad run determination for Run15 pp 200 GeV MTD data - RongRong Ma 2019/8/29 1) Bug fix in Upsilon efficiency in dielectron channel - Shuai Yang 2) Update on Ds analysis- Chuan Fu minutes - Sooraj 2019/8/8 1) Study of non-flow effect in NPE v2 in 200 GeV Au+Au - Yingjie Zhou 2) Study with FMS in Run 16 - Matthew Kelsey 3) D+- reconstruction efficiency in Run16 Au+Au@200GeV sst+nosst streams - Jan Vanek 2019/8/1 1) Update on the D+- in Au+Au@200GeV - Jan Vanek 2) MTD matching efficiency study in Run15 - RongRong Ma 3) NPE v2 in 54 GeV Au+Au - Yuanjing Ji 4) Update on Upsilon ->nu+nu in Au+Au - Pengfei Wang minutes -Petr 2019/7/25 1) Update on Upsilon studies in p+p 500 GeV - Leszek Kosarzewski 2) MTD trigger efficiency studies in Run17 p+p 500GeV - Feng Chan-Jui 3) Estimate of equivalent MB events for dimuon triggers in 2015 p+Au data - Rongrong Ma minutes - Sooraj 2019/7/18 1) TPC tracking efficiency for the Jpsi analysis using Run15 p+Au data - Rongrong Ma minutes - Zebo 2019/6/20 1) D0 v2 + event-shape-engineering - Yue Liang 2) Bottom electron RAA and v2 systematic uncertainties - Matthew Kelsey minutes - Petr 2019/6/13 1) NPE v2 at 54 and 27 GeV - Yuanjing Ji minutes - Zebo 2019/5/30 1) HF electron v1 in Au+Au 2014 - Matthew Kelsey 2) Update on Upsilon signal fitting - Leszek Kosarzewski 3) Update on J/Psi analysis in Run 15 p+Au- Yanfang Liu 4) Efficiency studies on J/Psi analysis in Run 15 p+Au - Rongrong Ma 2019/5/16 1) Upsilon ->e+e in Au+Au date - Shuai Yang 2) Charm v2 in Au+Au run16 with KFP - Pavol Federic 3) Upsilon ->nu+nu in Au+Au- Pengfei Wang 4) Bad run determination for Run15 pAu - Rongrong Ma minutes-Petr 2019/5/9 1) Report on the Lambda_c paper - Sooraj Radhakrishnan 2) Update on single electron analysis with HFT - Matthew Kelsey minutes - Zebo 2019/4/25 1) HFT Embedding pT Resolution Studies - Jan Vanek minutes - Sooraj 2019/4/18 1) Update on La_c analysis - Sooraj Radhakrishnan 2) Upsilon paper proposal - Pengfei Wang minutes-Petr 2019/4/11 1) updates for the Uplsion->ee (run11 AuAu@200 GeV) analysis - Shuai Yang 2) update on the Run16 embedding QA - Jan Vanek 3) update on Upsilon analysis via di-muon channel in run14+run16 Au+Au@200GeV - Pengfei Wang 4) the effects of MC-RC embedding issue on the Upsilon analysis - Zaochen Ye minutes - Zebo 2019/3/30 STAR Collaboration meeting 2019/3/21 1) PID efficiency for D+- in Run16 Au+Au@200GeV - Jan Vanek 2) Effect of RC-MC issue for very low pT Jpsi analysis - Wangmei Zha 3) Number of equivalent MB events estimation for run11 HT2 triggered data - Shuai Yang 4) Update on PID efficiencies studies for D0 in d+Au - Lucas Kramarik minutes - Zebo 2019/3/14 1) Run11 Upsilon update - Shuai Yang 2) Update on HF electron analysis Mathew Kelsey 2019/2/28 1) Ds analysis update - Chuan Fu 2) Upsilon signal fitting in p+p 500 - Leszek Kosarzewski minutes -Petr 2019/2/21 1) QA of Run16 200GeV Au+Au pi+ embedding - Jan Vanek 2) Update on psi(2S) in run17 p+p@500GeV - Chan-Jui Feng minutes - Zebo 2019/2/14 1) Upsilon analysis using Run11 HT2 data: Shuai Yang minutes - Sooraj 2019/1/31 1) QA of run16 Au+Au@200GeV SL18f- Jan Vanek 2) K and pi PID efficiency for D0 in d+Au - Lukas Kramarik 3) Update on electron purity for Run14 single e analysis - Matthew Kelsey minutes -Petr # 2020 2020/04/02 1) D+/- in Run14 and Run16 : Jan Vanek 2) Vertex using MTD hits in Run17: Chan-Jui Feng Minute # Minutes HF meeting 2010/08/10 2010/10/03 Meeting Minutes E/p show difference in width and shift MC/data. Should be investigated in different p bins to see p dependence List will be ranked with priority based on possible impact/feasibility. List will be revisited to push new paper low pt J/Psi further and also make sure that HF topics are covered. New EH needed to make HF QM2011 embedding done # Minutes for HF PWG meeting on 04/03/2014 0) General * Zhenyu has replaced Wei as a HF PWGC. * Reminder of QM2014 deadlines 1) low pT NPE in pp 2009 - Olga Olga updated the analysis to try to understand the enhancement at low pT w.r.t. Phenix and FONLL calculations. She had previouly used a |eta|<1 cut and used a TOF matching efficiency as a function of pT integrated over eta and phi from Babara. This time she derives the TOF matching eff by herself for different pT bins and phi regions as a function of eta. She is using a |eta|<0.7 cut. Another change was to extract and use Gamma 2009 and Dalitz 2008 embedding samples to extract the photonic electron efficiencies. The third update was a recaculation of the purity. With all these changes, the enhancement at low pT is now gone. A comment was made on slide 4 where the eta-dependent tof matching efficiency shows rapid falling offs for -123<phi<-63. Suggested to cut away these fall-off eta regions for -123<phi<-63 Action items: 1. Dalitz embedding 2009 samples for publication. Requests were in place but were not approved. The convenors will follow this up. For conferences, using Dalitz 2008 samples are fine, as the photonic electron efficiencies for gamma samples are similar between 2008 and 2009. For publication, Dalitz embedding 2009 samples are needed. 2. Olga will send around the purity extraction QA plots 3. Olga will put a cut to remove eta<0.3 and -123<phi<-63 2) high pT NPE in pp 2012 - Xiaozhi Xiaozhi presented electron/gamma embedding QA plots. For data, he used photonic electrons with a requirement on pair DCA and inv mass to select pure electrons, while for embedding he used the MC particle info to select pure electrons. He found that nhitfit and global DCA distributions are different between data and embedding. Such a difference should not have a large influence on the results, as the cuts he applied are far away from the majority of the electron candidate distributions. Action items: 1. Xiaozhi updates the study with the same selection cuts applied to both data and embedding to ensure there is no bias introduced. # Heavy Quark Physics in Nucleus-Nucleus Collisions Workshop at UCLA We will organize a workshop on heavy quark physics in nucleus-nucleus collisions from January 22-24, 2009. The workshop will be hosted by the Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California at Los Angeles. Topics of the workshop include 1) Contrasting heavy quark and light quark energy loss mechanisms, 2) Charm and Bottom quark energy loss phenomenology, 3) Quantifying QCD matter using heavy quark probes, 4) Color screening and Quarkonia propagation/generation, and 5) Update on plan of heavy quark measurements/detector upgrades at LHC/RHIC. The workshop web site is http://home.physics.ucla.edu/calendar/Workshops/HQP/index.html. # NPE Analyses # NPE Weekly Meeting ******************************************************************************************************************* Meeting URL https://bluejeans.com/500155369?src=join_info Meeting ID 500 155 369 Want to dial in from a phone? Dial one of the following numbers: +1.408.740.7256 (US (San Jose)) +1.408.317.9253 (US (Primary, San Jose)) (see all numbers - https://www.bluejeans.com/premium-numbers) Enter the meeting ID and passcode followed by # Connecting from a room system? Dial: bjn.vc or 199.48.152.152 and enter your meeting ID & passcode ******************************************************************************************************************* 2020/11/04 pp eh correlation updates summary since 0917 STAR Collaboration Meeting by Yingjie 2020/10/14 pp eh correlation_hadron track efficiency correction by Yingjie 2020/09/09 pp run12 eh correlation_systematic uncertainty continue by Yingjie 2020/07/22 pp run12 eh correlation_systematic uncertainty continue by Yingjie 2020/07/08 pp run12 eh correlation_systematic uncertainty by Yingjie 2020/6/30 Hpt_HPE_ppAuAu_Shenghui_06302020 by Shenghui pp run12 eh correlation_systematic uncertainty by Yingjie 2020/06/23 Hpt_HPE_ppAuAu_Shenghui_06232020 by Shenghui 2020/06/16 Hpt_HPE_ppAuAu_Shenghui_06162020 by Shenghui 2020/03/12 pp run12 eh correlation collaboration meeting by Yingjie 2019/09/18 NPE_analysis_status_for_NPE_meeting_09182019 by Shenghui 2018/09/19 Electron PID with Likelihood method by Matthew 2018/09/13 Run14 HFT NPE by kunsu 2018/09/12 Electron PID with MVA by Matthew 2018/08/30 Run15 NPE by Peipei 2018/08/23 Run14 HFT NPE by kunsu 2018/08/16 Run14 PicoDst BEMC Check by Matthew 2018/07/26 Run14 HFT NPE by Kunsu 2018/07/05 Run14 HFT NPE by Kunsu 2018/06/21 Run14 HFT NPE by Kunsu minutes 2018/06/07 Run14 HFT NPE by Kunsu 2018/04/19 Run15 pp/pA 200 NPE analysis by Kunsu minutes by Kunsu 2018/03/22 Run15 pp 200 NPE analysis by Kunsu 2018/03/08 NPE updates by Kunsu minutes by Kunsu 2018/01/23 NPE updates (DCAz in Run14 AuAu200, purity in Run15 pp200) and some updates about DCAz by Kunsu minutes by Kunsu 2018/01/09 NPE updates (2nd peak on DCAz distribution) and plan by Kunsu minutes by Kunsu 2018/01/02 NPE production in Run15 pp and pA by Peipei 2017/11/28 NPE production in Run15 pp and pA by Peipei 2017/11/14 work status summary by xiaozhi Status Report: NPE Run14 AuAu@200GeV by Jongsik 2017/11/07 c+b->e with subtraction method by Yifei 2017/10/24 1) NPE analysis update by xiaozhi Update the slides by xiaozhi minutes - Yaping 2017/10/19 1) NPE analysis update by xiaozhi 2) Status of NPE in Au+Au 200 GeV without HFT by Jongsik 2017/10/10 1) NPE analysis update by xiaozhi 2017/9/28 1) NPE analysis update by xiaozhi 2) Current status by Jongsik 2017/9/12 1) NPE analysis update by Xiaozhi 2) NPE analysis update by Shenghui minutes - Yaping 2017/9/5 1) NPE analysis proposal by Kunsu, Jongsik and In-Kwon 2017/8/29 1) NPE updates by Shenghui 2) NPE updates by Xiaozhi 3) NPE updates by Kunsu minutes - Yaping 2017/1/24 1) NPE updates by Kunsu 2017/01/20 minutes - Zhenyu 2017/01/17 1) NPE updates by Kunsu minutes - Zhenyu 2017/01/13 1) NPE updates by kunsu 2017/01/10 1) NPE updates by Kunsu 2) Npe undate By xiaozhi minutes - Zhenyu 2016/12/13 1) NPE update by Xiaozhi 2016/12/13 1) NPE updates by Kunsu minutes - Zach 2016/12/06 1) NPE updates by Kunsu 2) DCAXY Updates by Xiaozhi minutes - Zach 2016/11/22 1) PhE and inclusive e DCAxy in HIJING by Kunsu 2) PHE and inclusive DcaXy in Hijing by xiaozhi minutes - Zhenyu 2016/11/01 1) HIJING QA by Kunsu minutes - Zhenyu 2016/10/25 1) NPE updates by Kunsu minutes - Zhenyu 2016/10/04 1) NPE w/o HFT by Shenghui 2016/09/20 1) NPE updates by Kunsu 2) update by Xiazohi minutes - Zhenyu 2016/09/13 1) NPE updates by Kunsu 2016/08/30 1) QM2017 NPE Abstract Topics by Zach 2) NPE updates and QM2017 abstract by Kunsu 3) QM2017 abstract draft by Shenghui minutes -Zhenyu 2016/03/18 1) single muon simulation by Jie 2) SL15c vs SL15k comparison by Xiaozhi 3) PXL simulator update by Kunsu minutes - Zhenyu 2016/03/11 1) new simulator update (clustering and PXLBug) by Kunsu 2016/03/04 1) new simulator update (clustering) by Kunsu 2016/02/26 1) new simulator (clustering) by kunsu 2016/02/19 1) updates by Xiaozhi 2016/02/12 1) update by Kunsu 2) single muon by Jie minutes - Zhenyu 2016/02/05 1) update by Kunsu minutes - Zhenyu 2016/1/15 1) Data and simulation update - Kunsu 2) Data and simulation update -Xiaozhi Minutes - Zhenyu 2015/12/18 1) search for Beam Pipe - Kunsu 2) photonic electrons in data and simulation - Xiaozhi 2015/12/11 1) Photonic electrons in Run14 data - Shenghui 2) Photonic electrons in Run14 data - Xiaozhi Minutes - Zhenyu 2015/12/4 1) eK pair - Jie Minutes - Zhenyu 2015/11/20 1) Phtonic Electrons Run14 data - Shenghui 2) Simulation -Xiaozhi 3) eK pair - Jie Minutes - Zhenyu 2015/11/13 1) eK pair - Jie 2) First look into Run14 Data - Shenghui 3) Simulation -Xiaozhi Minutes - Zhenyu 2015/11/06 1) Data - Kunsu 2) Simulation - Xiaozhi 3) eK pair - Jie Minutes - Zhenyu 2015/10/23 1) Data and Simulation DCA comparison - Kunsu 2) Simulation updates - Xiaozhi 3) Updates - Jie Minutes - Zhenyu 2015/10/16 1) Status - Zhenyu 2) Plan - Jie 2015/09/04 1) Data - Kunsu 2) Simulation - Zhenyu Minutes - Zhenyu 2015/08/28 1) Data - Kunsu Minutes - Xin 2015/08/14 1) Data - Kunsu Minutes - Zhenyu 2015/08/07 1) Simulation - Xiaozhi 2) Data - Kunsu Minutes - Zhenyu 2015/07/31 1) Simulation - Xiaozhi 2) Data - Kunsu Minutes - Zhenyu 2015/07/24 1) Simulation - Xiaozhi Minutes - Zhenyu 2015/07/17 1) Data - Kunsu 2) Simulation - Xiaozhi Minutes - Xin 2015/07/10 1) Simulation - Xiaozhi Minutes - Zhenyu 2015/06/26 1) Data - Kunsu 2015/05/29 0) QM Abstract 1) Simulation - Xiaozhi Minutes - Zhenyu 2015/05/22 0 Code Review - Mustafa 1) Run14 Data - Kunsu 2) Simulation - Xiaozhi Minutes - Zhenyu 2015/06/26 1) Data - Kunsu 2015/05/15 1) Simulation - Xiaozhi Minutes - Zhenyu 2015/05/08 1) Run14 Data - Kunsu 2) Simulation - Xiaozhi Minutes - Zhenyu 2015/05/01 1) Run14 Data - Kunsu 2) Presenation at LBNL RNC Group on April 27 - Kunsu Minutes - Zhenyu 2015/04/17 1) Run14 Data - Kunsu 2) Simulation - Xiaozhi Minutes - Zhenyu 2015/04/10 1) Run14 Data - Kunsu Minutes - Zhenyu # PWG members and analysis Current active PWG members  Institute Name Position Analysis Topics Comment BNL Thomas Ullrich Staff Non-photonic electrons, quarkonia production Zhangbu Xu Staff Non-photonic electrons, J/psi production Lijuan Ruan Postdoc High pT J/psi UCLA Huan Z. Huang Staff Non-photonic electrons, open charm hadron via hadronic decays Gang Wang Postdoc Non-photonic electron spectrum and v2, NPE-hadron correlations Wenqin Xu Student Non-photonic electrons in d+Au, open charm hadron recon., HF PWG embedding helper SINAP Wei Li Student Non-photonic electrons in p+p 500 GeV Purdue Univ. Wei Xie Staff Non-photonic electrons Xin Li Student Non-photonic electrons in d+Au / p+p Run 8, and p+p Run9 Mustafa Mustafa Student D0 in p+p Run9 UC Davis Manuel Calderon Staff Upsilon production Haidong Liu Postdoc Upsilon in d+Au Run 8 Left STAR in 2010 Debasish Dash Postdoc Upsilon in Au+Au Run 7 Left STAR in 2010 Rosi Reed Student Upsilon in p+p Run 6, Au+Au Run 7 LBNL Grazyna Odyniec Staff J/psi production Xin Dong Postdoc Non-photonic electrons, open charm hadron recon. Yifei Zhang Postdoc Non-photonic electrons, open charm hadron recon. Daniel Kikola Student Low pT J/psi in Cu+Cu and Au+Au collisions Chris Powell Student Low pT J/psi in d+Au collisions Warsaw Tech. Univ. Barbara Trzeciak Student J/psi polarization in p+p collisions Univ. of Sao Paulo Alex Suaide Staff Non-photonic electrons, J/psi production Mauro Cosentino Student Low pT J/psi in p+p Run 6 Graduated in 2008 (Theses) Lucas Lima Student Low pT J/psi L2 trigger Texas A&M Univ. Saskia Mioduszewski Staff Quarkonia production Rory Clarke Postdoc Upsilon production, BPRS calibration Left in 2009 Pibero Djawotho Postdoc Upsilon in p+p Run 6 In Spin PWG since 2009 Matt Cervantes Student Upsilon - h correlation, BPRS calibration CTU, Prague Jaro Bielcik Staff Non-photonic electrons, open charm hadron recon. Mira Krus Student Non-photonic electron - hadron correlation in A + A collisions left STAR in 2010 Olga Hajkova Student Low pT J/psi in d+Au Run 8 NPI, Prague David Tlusty Student Non-photonic electrons in d+Au, open charm hadron recon. Yale Stephen Baumgart Student D0 in Cu+Cu, open charm hadron recon. Graduated in 2009 (Theses) Anders Knospe Student Non-photonic electrons in Cu+Cu collisions Wayne State Univ. Sarah LaPointe Student D0 in Au+Au Run 7 with SVT/SSD Kent State Univ. Spiros Margetis Staff Open charm hadron recon. Jonathan Bouchet Postdoc Open charm hadron recon. with SVT/SSD, microVertexing Jaiby Joseph Postdoc Open charm hadron recon. with SVT/SSD, microVertexing Naresh Subba Student Non-photonic electrons at forward region SUBATECH Sonia Kabana Staff Open charm hadron recon. in A+A with SVT/SSD Raghunath Sahoo Postdoc Non-photonic electron tagged D0 in Cu+Cu with SVT/SSD Artemios Geromitsos Student Non-photonic electron tagged D0 and open charm hadron recon. with SVT/SSD Witold Borowski Student Non-photonic electron tagged D0 and open charm hadron recon. with SVT/SSD UC Berkeley Chris Perkins Student J/psi in the forward region from FMS USTC, China Zebo Tang Student High pT J/psi production Graduated in 2009 (Theses) SINAP, China Fu Jin Student Non-photonic electrons in p+p 2008 Graduated in 2010 Grouped by Analysis Topics  Analysis Topics PAs Status Comment D0 reconstruction in dAu Run 3 Haibin Zhang Published D*, D+ reconstruction in dAu Run 3 An Tai Paper proposal to PWG (on hold as PA left) PA left STAR D0 reconstruction in AuAu 200 GeV Run 4 Haibin Zhang Paper hold from re-submission D0 reconstruction in CuCu 200 GeV Run 5 Stephen Baumgart Alexandre Shabetai Paper proposal to PWG (with NPE) D0 reconstruction in AuAu 200 GeV w/ SVT/SSD Run 7 Sarah LaPointe Preliminary result presented at QM09 D-meson reconstruction with micro-Vertexing Jonathan Bouchet Jaiby Joseph Preliminary Ds reconstruction in dAu (Run3), CuCu (Run5), AuAu (Run7) Stephen Baumgart Preliminary result presented at WWND2010 D0 reconstruction in dAu Run8 Wenqin Xu David Tlusty Preliminary (no strong signal) Not consistent with Run3 D*-jet correlation in pp Run 5 Xin Dong Published D0 reconstruction in p+p 200 GeV Run 9 David Tlusty Yifei Zhang Mustafa Mustafa Preliminary D* reconstruction in p+p 200 GeV Run 9 Xin Dong Preliminary NPE in dAu and pp Run 3 with TOF Xin Dong Published NPE in pp, dAu (Run 3) and AuAu (Run 4) with EMC Alexandre Suaide Weijiang Dong Jaro Bielcik Published NPE in AuAu Run 4 with TOF Yifei Zhang Paper hold from re-submission Low pT muon in AuAu Run 4 with TOF Chen Zhong Paper hold from re-submission NPE in pp Run 5/6 with EMC Shingo Sakai Gang Wang Wei Xie Paper in GPC NPE in CuCu Run 5 Anders Knospe Preliminary result presented at SQM09 NPE with Endcap EMC Naresh Subba Preliminary NPE in pp Run 8 with EMC Wei Xie Paper in GPC NPE in dAu Run 8 with EMC Xin Li Wenqin Xu David Tlusty Preliminary NPE in pp Run 8 with TOF Fu Jin Preliminary result presented at SQM08 NPE ALL in p+p Priscilla Kurnadi Preliminary Joint with Spin PWG NPE in pp Run9 (TOF+EMC) Yifei Zhang Xin Li Preliminary NPE-h in p+p 500 GeV Wei Li Preliminary NPE-h correlation in pp Run5/6 Xiaoyan Lin Shingo Sakai Published NPE-D0 correlation in pp Run5/6 Andre Mischke Published NPE-h correlation in CuCu and AuAu Gang Wang Bertrand Biritz Mira Krus Preliminary result presented at QM09 NPE-D0 correlation in CuCu and AuAu Artemios Geromitsos Witold Borowski Raghunath Sahoo Preliminary NPE v2 in AuAu Run 4 Frank Laue Preliminary result presented at QM05 (proceeding withdrawed) NPE v2 in AuAu Run 7 Gang Wang Preliminary result presented in HP2010 NPE in p+p Run9 with TOF+BEMC Xin Li Yifei Zhang Preliminary J/psi in AuAu Run 4 Johan Gonzalez Preliminary result presented at QM05 J/psi in pp with toplogical trigger Mauro Cosentino PWGC review High pT J/psi in pp Run 5/6 and CuCu Run 5, J/psi-h correlation Zebo Tang Published J/psi in CuCu Run 5 and AuAu Run 7 Daniel Kikola PWGC review High pT J/psi in AuAu Run 7 Zebo Tang Preliminary J/psi in dAu Run 8 Chris Powell Olga Hajkova PWGC review High pT J/psi in dAu Run 8 Zebo Tang Preliminary J/psi in dAu from FMS Run 8 Chris Perkins Preliminary High pT J/psi in pp Run 8/9 and polarization Barbara Trzeciak Preliminary High pT J/psi in pp Run9 Zebo Tang Preliminary Low pT J/psi in pp Run9 Leszek Kosarzewski Preliminary J/psi in AuAu Run10 with HLT Hao Qiu Preliminary Upsilon in pp Run 6 Pibero Djawotho Rosi Reed Published Upsilon in AuAu Run 7 Debasish Das Rosi Reed Preliminary result presented at QM08 New preliminary result presented at HP2010 Upsilon in dAu Run 8 Haidong Liu Preliminary result presented at QM09 Upsilon-h correlation Matt Cervantes Preliminary Upsilon, correlation/polarization in Run9 Matt Cervantes Preliminary # PicoDst production requests This page collects the picoDst (re)production requested made by the HF PWG  Priority Dataset Data stream Special needs Chain option Production status Comments 0 production_pAu200_2015 st_physics st_ssdmb BEMC PicoVtxMode:PicoVtxVpdOrDefault, TpcVpdVzDiffCut:6 Done with SL18b Needed for QM2018 2 dAu200_production_2016 st_physics BEMC, FMS PicoVtxMode:PicoVtxVpdOrDefault, TpcVpdVzDiffCut:6 Benefit QM2018 analysis 3 production_pAu200_2015 st_mtd BEMC PicoVtxMode:PicoVtxVpdOrDefault, TpcVpdVzDiffCut:6 4 AuAu200_production_2016 AuAu200_production2_2016 st_physics BEMC, FMS PicoVtxMode:PicoVtxVpdOrDefault, TpcVpdVzDiffCut:3 5 AuAu_200_production_2014 AuAu_200_production_low_2014 AuAu_200_production_mid_2014 AuAu_200_production_high_2014 st_mtd BEMC mtdMatch, y2014a, PicoVtxMode:PicoVtxVpdOrDefault, TpcVpdVzDiffCut:3 1 AuAu_200_production_low_2014 AuAu_200_production_mid_2014 st_physics BEMC mtdMatch, y2014a, PicoVtxMode:PicoVtxVpdOrDefault, TpcVpdVzDiffCut:3 6 production_pp200long_2015 production_pp200long2_2015 production_pp200long3_2015 production_pp200trans_2015 st_physics st_ssdmb BEMC mtdMatch, y2015c,PicoVtxMode:PicoVtxVpdOrDefault, TpcVpdVzDiffCut:6 production_pp200_2015 st_mtd mtdMatch, y2015c, PicoVtxMode:PicoVtxVpdOrDefault, TpcVpdVzDiffCut:6, PicoCovMtxMode:PicoCovMtxSkip # Upsilon Analysis Links related to Upsilon Analysis. • Upsilon paper page from Pibero. • Technical Note is located in Attachments to this page. • TeX source (saved as .txt so drupal doesn't complain) for Technical Note is also in Attachments. • Upsilon paper drafts are found below. # Combinatorial background subtraction for e+e- signals It is common to use the formula 2*sqrt(N++ N--) to model the combinatorial background when studying e+e- signals, e.g. for J/psi and Upsilon analyses. We can obtain this formula in the following way. Assume we have an event in which there are Nsig particles that decay into e+e- pairs. Since each decay generates one + and one - particle, the total number of unlike sign combinations we can make is N+- = Nsig2. To obtain the total number of pairs that are just random combinations, we subtract the number of pairs that came from a real decay. So we have N+-comb=Nsig2-Nsig=Nsig(Nsig-1) For the number of like-sign combinations, for example for the ++ combinations, there will be a total of (Nsig-1) pairs that can be made by the first positron, then (Nsig-2) that can be made by the second positron, and so on. So the total number of ++ combinations will be N++ = (Nsig-1) + (Nsig - 2) + ... + (Nsig - (Nsig-1)) + (Nsig-Nsig) Where there are Nsig terms. Factoring, we get: N++ = Nsig2 - (1+2+...+Nsig) = Nsig2 - (Nsig(Nsig+1))/2 = (Nsig2 - Nsig)/2=Nsig(Nsig-1)/2 Similarly, N-- = Nsig(Nsig-1)/2 If there are no acceptance effects, either the N++ or the N-- combinations can be used to model the combinatorial background by simply multiplying them by 2. The geometric average also works: 2*sqrt(N++ N--) = 2*Nsig(Nsig-1)/sqrt(4) = Nsig(Nsig-1) = N+-comb. The geometric average can also work for cases where there are acceptance differences, with the addition of a multiplicative correction factor R to take the relative acceptance of ++ and -- pairs into account. So the geometric average is for the case R=1 (similar acceptance for ++ and --). # Estimating Acceptance Uncertainty due to unknown Upsilon Polarization The acceptance of Upsilon decays depends on the polarization of the Upsilon. We do not have enough statistics to measure the polarization. It is also not clear even at higher energies if there is a definite pattern: there are discrepancies between CDF and D0 about the polarization of the 1S. The 2S and 3S show different polarizations trends than the 1S. So for the purposes of the paper, we will estimate the uncertainty due to the unknown Upsilon polarization using two extremes: fully transverse and fully longitudinal polarization. This is likely an overestimate, but the effect is not the dominant source of uncertainty, so for the paper it is good enough. There are simulations of the expected acceptance for the unpolarized, longitudinal and transverse cases done by Thomas: http://www.star.bnl.gov/protected/heavy/ullrich/ups-pol.pdf Using the pT dependence of the acceptance for the three cases (see page 9 of the PDF) we must then apply it to our measured upsilons. We do this by obtaining the pT distribution of the unlike sign pairs (after subtracting the like-sign combinatorial background) in the Upsilon mass region and with |y|<0.5. This is shown below as the black data points. The data points are fit with a function of the form A pT2 exp(-pT/T), shown as the solid black line (fit result: A=18.0 +/- 8.3, T = 1.36 +/- 0.16 GeV/c). We then apply the correction for the three cases, shown in the histograms (with narrow line width). The black is the correction for the unpolarized case (default), the red is for the longitudinal and the blue is for the transverse case. The raw yield can be obtained by integrating the histogram or the function. These give 89.7 (histo) and 89.9 (fit), which given the size of the errors is a reasonable fit. We can obtain the acceptance corrected yield (we ignore all other corrections here) by integrating the histograms, which give: • Unpol: 158.9 counts • Trans: 156.4 counts • Longi: 163.6 counts We estimate from this that fully transverse Upsilons should have a yield lower by -1.6% and fully longitudinal Upsilons should have a higher yield by 2.9%. We use this as a systematic uncertainty in the acceptance correction. In addition, the geometrical acceptance can vary in the real data due to masked towers which are not accounted for in the simulation. We estimate that this variation is of order 25 towers (which is used in the 2007 and 2008 runs as the number of towers allowed to be dynamically masked). This adds 25/4800 = 0.5% to the uncertainty in the geometrical acceptance. # Estimating Drell-Yan contribution from NLO calculation. Ramona calculated the cross section for DY at NLO and sent the data points to us. These were first shown in the RHIC II Science Workshop, April 2005, in her Quarkonium talk and her Drell-Yan (and Open heavy flavor) talk. The total cross section (integral of all mass points in the region |y|<5) is 19.6 nb (Need to check if there is an additional normalization with Ramona, but the cross section found by PHENIX using Pythia is 42 nb with 100% error bar, so a 19.6 nb cross section is certainly consistent with this). She also gave us the data in the region |y|<1, where the cross section is 5.24 nb. The cross section as a function of invariant mass in the region |y|<1 is shown below. The black curve includes a multiplication with an error function (as we did for the b-bbar case) and normalized such that the ratio between the blue and the black line is 8.5% at 10 GeV/c to account for the efficiency and acceptance found in embedding for the Upsilon 1s. The expected counts in the region 8-11 are 20 +/- 3, where the error is given by varying the parameters of the error function within its uncertainty. The actual uncertainty is likely bigger than this if we take into account the overall normalization uncertainty in the calculation. I asked Ramona for the numbers in the region |y|<0.5, since that is what we use in STAR. The corresponding plot is below. The integral of the data points gives 2.5 nb. The integral of the data between 7.875 and 11.125 GeV/c2 is 42.30 pb. The data is parameterized by the function shown in blue. The integral of the function in the same region gives 42.25 pb, so it is quite close to the calculation. In the region 8<m<11 GeV/c2, the integral of the funciton is 38.6 pb. The expected counts with this calculation are 25 for both triggers. # Response to PRD referee comments on Upsilon Paper ## First Round of Referee Responses Click here for second round. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Report of Referee A: > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > This is really a well-written paper. It was a pleasure to read, and I > have only relatively minor comments. We thank the reviewer for careful reading of our paper and for providing useful feedback. We are pleased to know that the reviewer finds the paper to be well written. We have incorporated all the comments into a new version of the draft. > Page 3: Although there aren't published pp upsilon cross sections there > is a published R_AA and an ee mass spectrum shown in E. Atomssa's QM09 > proceedings. This should be referenced. We are aware of the PHENIX results from E. Atomssa, Nucl.Phys.A830:331C-334C,2009 and three other relevant QM proceedings: P. Djawotho, J.Phys.G34:S947-950,2007 D. Das, J.Phys.G35:104153,2008 H. Liu, Nucl.Phys.A830:235C-238C,2009 However, it is STAR's policy to not reference our own preliminary data on the manuscript we submit for publication on a given topic, and by extension not to reference other preliminary experimental data on the same topic either. > > Page 4, end of section A: Quote trigger efficiency. > The end of Section A now reads: "We find that 25% of the Upsilons produced at midrapidity have both daughters in the BEMC acceptance and at least one of them can fire the L0 trigger. The details of the HTTP trigger efficiency and acceptance are discussed in Sec. IV" > Figure 1: You should either quote L0 threshold in terms of pt, or plot > vs. Et. Caption should say L0 HT Trigger II threshold. We changed the figure to plot vs. E_T, which is the quantity that is measured by the calorimeter. For the electrons in the analysis, the difference between p_T and E_T is negligible, so the histograms in Figure 1 are essentially unchanged. We changed the caption as suggested. > > Figures 3-6 would benefit from inclusion of a scaled minimum bias spectrum > to demonstrate the rejection factor of the trigger. We agree that it is useful to quote the rejection factor of the trigger. We prefer to do so in the text. We added to the description of Figure 3 the following sentence: "The rejection factor achieved with Trigger II, defined as the number of minimum bias events counted by the trigger scalers divided by the number events where the upsilon trigger was issued, was found to be 1.8 x 105." > > Figure 9: There should be some explanation of the peak at E/p = 2.7 > We investigated this peak, and we traced it to a double counting error. The problem arose due to the fact that the figure was generated from a pairwise Ntuple, i.e. one in which each row represented a pair of electrons (both like-sign and unlike-sign pairs included), each with a value of E and p, instead of a single electron Ntuple. We had plotted the value of E/p for the electron candidate which matched all possible high-towers in the event. The majority of events have only one candidate pair, so there were relatively few cases where there was double counting. We note that for pairwise quantities such as opening angle and invariant mass, each entry in the Ntuple is still different. However, the case that generated the peak at E/p = 2.7 in the figure was traced to one event that had one candidate positron track, with its corresponding high-tower, which was paired with several other electron and positron candidates. Each of these entries has a different invariant mass, but the same E/p for the first element of the pair. So its entry in Figure 9, which happened to be at E/p=2.7, was repeated several times in the histogram. The code to generate the data histogram in Figure 9 has now been corrected to guarantee that the E/p distribution is made out of unique track-cluster positron candidates. The figure in the paper has been updated. The new histogram shows about 5 counts in that region. As a way to gauge the effect the double counting had on the E/p=1 area of the figure, there were about 130 counts in the figure at the E/p=1 peak position in the case with the double-counting error, and there are about 120 counts in the peak after removing the double-counting. The fix leads to an improved match between the data histogram and the Monte Carlo simulations. We therefore leave the efficiency calculation, which is based on the Monte Carlo Upsilon events, unchanged. The pairwise invariant mass distribution from which the main results of the paper are obtained is unaffected by this. We thank the reviewer for calling our attention to this peak, which allowed us to find and correct this error. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Report of Referee B: > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The paper reports the first measurement of the upsilon (Y) cross-section > in pp collisions at 200 GeV. This is a key piece of information, both > in the context of the RHIC nucleus-nucleus research program and in its > own right. The paper is rather well organized, the figures are well > prepared and explained, and the introduction and conclusion are clearly > written. However, in my opinion the paper is not publishable in its > present form: some issues, which I enumerate below, should be addressed > by the authors before that. > > The main problems I found with the paper have to do with the estimate > of the errors. There are two issues: > > The first: the main result is obtained by integrating the counts above > the like-sign background between 8 and 11 GeV in figure 10, quoted to > give 75+-20 (bottom part of table III). This corresponds the sum Y + > continuum. Now to get the Y yield, one needs to subtract an estimated > contribution from the continuum. Independent of how this has been > estimated, the subtraction can only introduce an additional absolute > error. Starting from the systematic error on the counts above background, > the error on the estimated Y yield should therefore increase, whereas > in the table it goes down from 20 to 18. Thanks for bringing this issue to our attention. It is true that when subtracting two independently measured numbers, the statistical uncertainty in the result of the subtraction can only be larger than the absolute errors of the two numbers, i.e. if C = A - B, and error(A) and error(B) are the corresponding errors, then the statistical error on C would be sqrt(error(B)2+error(A)2) which would yield a larger absolute error than either error(A) or error(B). However, the extraction of the Upsilon yield in the analysis needs an estimate of the continuum contribution, but the key difference is that it is not obtained by an independent measurement. The two quantities, namely the Upsilon yield and the continuum yield, are obtained ultimately from the same source: the unlike sign dielectron distribution, after the subtraction of the like-sign combinatorial background. This fact causes an anti-correlation between the two yields, the larger the continuum yield, the smaller the Upsilon yield. So one cannot treat the subtraction of the continuum yield and the Upsilon yield as the case for independent measurements. This is why in the paper we discuss that an advantage of using the fit includes taking automatically into account the correlation between the continuum and the Upsilon yield. So the error that is quoted in Table III for all the "Upsilon counts", i.e. the Fitting Results, the Bin-by-bin Counting, and the Single bin counting, is quoted by applying the percent error on the Upsilon yield obtained from the fitting method, which is the best way to take the anti-correlation between the continuum yield and the Upsilon yield into account. We will expand on this in section VI.C, to help clarify this point. We thank the referee for alerting us. > > The second issue is somewhat related: the error on the counts (18/54, or > 33%) is propagated to the cross section (38/114) as statistical error, > and a systematic error obtained as quadratic sum of the systematic > uncertainties listed in Table IV is quoted separately. The uncertainty on > the subtraction of the continuum contribution (not present in Table IV), > has completely disappeared, in spite of being identified in the text as > "the major contribution to the systematic uncertainty" (page 14, 4 lines > from the bottom). > > This is particularly puzzling, since the contribution of the continuum > is even evaluated in the paper itself (and with an error). This whole > part needs to be either fixed or, in case I have misunderstood what the > authors did, substantially clarified. We agree that this can be clarified. The error on the counts (18/54, or 33%) includes two contributions: 1) The (purely statistical) error on the unlike-sign minus like sign subtraction, which is 20/75 or 26%, as per Table III. 2) The additional error from the continuum contribution, which we discuss in the previous comment, and is not just a statistical sum of the 26% statistical error and the error on the continuum, rather it must include the anti-correlation of the continuum yield and the Upsilon yield. The fit procedure takes this into account, and we arrive at the combined 33% error. The question then arises how to quote the statistical and systematic uncertainties. One difficulty we faced is that the subtraction of the continuum contribution is not cleanly separated between statistical and systematic uncertainties. On the one hand, the continuum yield of 22 counts can be varied within the 1-sigma contours to be as low as 14 and as large as 60 counts (taking the range of the DY variation from Fig. 12). This uncertainty is dominated by the statistical errors of the dielectron invariant mass distribution from Fig. 11. Therefore, the dominant uncertainty in the continuum subtraction procedure is statistical, not systematic. To put it another way, if we had much larger statistics, the uncertainty in the fit would be much reduced also. On the other hand, there is certainly a model-dependent component in the subtraction of the continuum, which is traditionally a systematic uncertainty. We chose to represent the combined 33% percent error as a statistical uncertainty because a systematic variation in the results would have if we were to choose, say, a different model for the continuum contribution, is smaller compared to the variation allowed by the statistical errors in the invariant mass distribution. In other words, the reason we included the continuum subtraction uncertainty together in the quote of the statistical error was that its size in the current analysis ultimately comes from the statistical precision of our invariant mass spectrum. We agree that this is not clear in the text, given that we list this uncertainty among all the other systematic uncertainties, and we have modified the text to clarify this. Perhaps a more appropriate way to characterize the 33% error is that it includes the "statistical and fitting error", to highlight the fact that in addition to the purely statistical errors that can be calculated from the N++, N-- and N+- counting statistics, this error includes the continuum subtraction error, which is based on a fit that takes into account the statistical error on the invariant mass spectrum, and the important anti-correlation between the continuum yield and the Upsilon yield. We have added an explanation of these items in the updated draft of the paper, in Sec VI.C. > > There are a few other issues which in my opinion should be dealt with > before the paper is fit for publication: > > - in the abstract, it is stated that the Color Singlet Model (CSM) > calculations underestimate the Y cross-section. Given that the discrepancy > is only 2 sigma or so, such a statement is not warranted. "Seems to > disfavour", could perhaps be used, if the authors really insist in making > such a point (which, however, would be rather lame). The statement that > CSM calculations underestimate the cross-section is also made in the > conclusion. There, it is even commented, immediately after, that the > discrepancy is only a 2 sigma effect, resulting in two contradicting > statements back-to-back. Our aim was mainly to be descriptive. To clarify our intent, the use of "underestimate" is in the sense that if we move our datum point lower by the 1-sigma error of our measurement and this value is higher than the top end of the CSM calculation. We quantify this by saying that the size of the effect is about 2-sigma. We think that the concise statement "understimate by 2sigma" objectively summarizes the observation, without need to use more subjective statements, and we modified the text in the abstract and conclusion accordingly. > > - on page 6 it is stated that the Trigger II cuts were calculated offline > for Trigger I data. However, it is not clear if exactly the same trigger > condition was applied offline on the recorded values of the original > trigger input data or the selection was recalculated based on offline > information. This point should be clarified. Agreed. We have added the sentence: "The exact same trigger condition was applied offline on the recorded values of the original trigger input data." > > - on page 7 it is said that PYTHIA + Y events were embedded in zero-bias > events with a realistic distribution of vertex position. Given that > zero-bias events are triggered on the bunch crossing, and do not > necessarily contain a collision (and even less a reconstructed vertex), > it is not clear what the authors mean. We do not know if the statement that was unclear is how the realsitic vertex distribution was obtained or if the issue pertained to where the analyzed collision comes from. We will try to clarify both instances. The referee has correctly understood that the zero-bias events do not necessarily contain a collision. That is why the PYTHIA simulated event is needed. The zero-bias events will contain additional effects such as out of time pile-up in the Time Projection Chamber, etc. In other words, they will contain aspects of the data-taking environment which are not captured by the PYTHIA events. That is what is mentioned in the text: "These zero-bias events do not always have a collision in the given bunch crossing, but they include all the detec- tor effects and pileup from out-of-time collisions. When combined with simulated events, they provide the most realistic environment to study the detector e±ciency and acceptance." The simulated events referred to in this text are the PYTHIA events, and it is the simulated PYTHIA event, together with the Upsilon, that provides the collision event to be studied for purposes of acceptance and efficiency. In order to help clarify our meaning, we have also added statements to point out that the dominant contribution to the TPC occupancy is from out of time pileup. Regarding the realistic distribution of vertices, this is obtained from the upsilon triggered events (not from the zero-bias events, which have no collision and typically do not have a found vertex, as the referee correctly interpreted). We have added a statement to point this out and hopefully this will make the meaning clear. > > - on page 13 the authors state that they have parametrized the > contribution of the bbar contribution to the continuum based on a PYTHIA > simulation. PYTHIA performs a leading order + parton shower calculation, > while the di-electon invariant mass distribution, is sensitive to > next-to-leading order effects via the angular correlation of the the two > produced b quarks. Has the maginuted of this been evaluated by comparing > PYTHIA results with those of a NLO calculation? > We did not do so for this paper. This is one source of systematic uncertainty in the continuum contribution, as discussed in the previous remarks. For this paper, the statistics in the dielectron invariant mass distribution are such that the variation in the shape of the b-bbar continuum between LO and NLO would not contribute a significant variation to the Upsilon yield. This can be seen in Fig. 12, where the fit of the continuum allows for a removal of the b-bbar yield entirely, as long as the Drell-Yan contribution is kept. We expect to make such comparisons with the increased statistics available in the run 2009 data, and look forward to including NLO results in the next analysis. > - on page 13 the trigger response is emulated using a turn-on function > parametrised from the like-sign data. Has this been cross-checked with a > simulation? If yes, what was the result? If not, why? We did not cross check the trigger response on the continuum with a simulation, because a variation of the turn-on function parameters gave a negligible variation on the extracted yields, so it was not deemed necessary. We did use a simulation of the trigger response on simulated Upsilons (see Fig. 6, dashed histogram). > > Finally, I would like to draw the attention of the authors on a few less > important points: > > - on page 6 the authors repeat twice, practically with the same words, > that the trigger rate is dominated by di-jet events with two back-to-back > pi0 (once at the top and once near the bottom of the right-side column). We have changed the second occurrence to avoid repetitiveness. > > - all the information of Table I is also contained in Table 4; why is > Table I needed? We agree that all the information in Table I is contained in Table 4 (except for the last row, which shows the combined efficiency for the 1S+2S+3S), so it could be removed. We have included it for convenience only: Table I helps in the discussion of the acceptance and efficiencies, and gives the combined overall correction factors, whereas the Table IV helps in the discussion of the systematic uncertainties of each item. > > - in table IV, the second column says "%", which is true for the > individual values of various contributions to the systematic uncertainty, > but not for the combined value at the bottom, which instead is given > in picobarn. Agreed. We have added the pb units for the Combined error at the bottom of the table. > > - in the introduction (firts column, 6 lines from the bottom) the authors > write that the observation of suppression of Y would "strongly imply" > deconfinement. This is a funny expression: admitting that such an > observation would imply deconfinement (which some people may not be > prepared to do), what's the use of the adverb "strongly"? Something > either does or does not imply something else, without degrees. We agree that the use of "imply" does not need degrees, and we also agree that some people might not be prepared to admit that such an observation would imply deconfinement. We do think that such an observation would carry substantial weight, so we have rephrased that part to "An observation of suppression of Upsilon production in heavy-ions relative to p+p would be a strong argument in support of Debye screening and therefore of deconfinement" We thank the referee for the care in reading the manuscript and for all the suggestions. ## Second Round of Referee Responses > I think the paper is now much improved. However, > there is still one point (# 2) on which I would like to hear an > explanation from the authors before approving the paper, and a > couple of points (# 6 and 7) that I suggest the authors should > still address. > Main issues: > 1) (errors on subtraction of continuum contribution) > I think the way this is now treated in the paper is adequate > 2) (where did the subtraction error go?) > I also agree that the best way to estimate the error is > to perform the fit, as is now explicitly discussed in the paper. > Still, I am surprised, that the additional error introduced by > the subtraction of the continuum appears to be negligible > (the error is still 20). In the first version of the paper there > was a sentence – now removed – stating that the uncertainty > on the subtraction of the continuum contribution was one > of the main sources of systematic uncertainty! > -> I would at least like to hear an explanation about > what that sentence > meant (four lines from the bottom of page 14) Response: Regarding the size of the error: The referee is correct in observing that the error before and after subtraction is 20, but it is important to note that the percentage error is different. Using the numbers from the single bin counting, we get 75.3 +/- 19.7 for the N+- - 2*sqrt(N++ * N--), i.e. the like-sign subtracted unlike-sign signal. The purely statistical uncertainty is 19.7/75.3 = 26%. When we perform the fit, we obtain the component of this signal that is due to Upsilons and the component that is due to the Drell-Yan and b-bbar continuum, but as we discussed in our previous response, the yields have an anti-correlation, and therefore there is no reason why the error in the Upsilon yield should be larger in magnitude than the error of the like-sign subtracted unlike-sign signal. However, one must note that the _percent_ error does, in fact, increase. The fit result for the upsilon yield alone is 59.2 +\- 19.8, so the error is indeed the same as for the like-sign subtracted unlike-sign signal, but the percent error is now larger: 33%. In other words, the continuum subtraction increases the percent error in the measurement, as it should. Note that if we one had done the (incorrect) procedure of adding errors in quadrature, using an error of 14.3 counts for the continuum yield and an error of 19.7 counts for the background-subtracted unlike-sign signal, the error on the Upsilon yield would be 24 counts. This is a relative error of 40%, which is larger than the 33% we quote. This illustrates the effect of the anti-correlation. Regarding the removal of the sentence about the continuum subtraction contribution to the systematic uncertainty: During this discussion of the continuum subtraction and the estimation of the errors, we decided to remove the sentence because, as we now state in the paper, the continuum subtraction uncertainty done via the fit is currently dominated by the statistical error bars of the data in Fig. 11, and is therefore not a systematic uncertainty. A systematic uncertainty in the continuum subtraction would be estimated, for example, by studying the effect on the Upsilon yield that a change from the Leading-Order PYTHIA b-bbar spectrum we use to a NLO b-bbar spectrum, or to a different Drell-Yan parameterization. As discussed in the response to point 6), a complete removal of the b-bbar spectrum, a situation allowed by the fit provided the Drell-Yan yield is increased, produces a negligible change in the Upsilon yield. Hence, systematic variations in the continuum do not currently produce observable changes in the Upsilon yield. Varying the continuum yield of a given model within the statistical error bars does, and this uncertainty is therefore statisitcal. Therefore, we removed the sentence stating that the continuum subtraction is one of the dominant sources of systematic uncertainty because in the reexamination of that uncertainty triggered by the referee's comments, we concluded that it is more appropriate to consider it as statistical, not systematic, in nature. We have thus replaced that sentence, and in its stead describe the uncertainty in the cross section as "stat. + fit", to draw attention to the fact that this uncertainty includes the continuum subtraction uncertainty obtained from the fit to the data. The statements in the paper in this respect read (page 14, left column): It should be noted that with the statistics of the present analysis, we find that the allowed range of variation of the continuum yield in the fit is still dominated by the statistical error bars of the invariant mass distribution, and so the size of the 33% uncertainty is mainly statistical in nature. However, we prefer to denote the uncertainty as “stat. + fit” to clarify that it includes the estimate of the anticorrelation between the Upsilon and continuum yields obtained by the fitting method. A systematic uncertainty due to the continuum subtraction can be estimated by varying the model used to produce the continuum contribution from b-¯b. These variations produce a negligible change in the extracted yield with the current statistics. We have added our response to point 6) (b-bbar correlation systematics) to this part of the paper, as it pertains to this point. > Other issues: > 3) (two sigma effect) > OK > 4) (Trigger II cuts) > OK > 5) (embedding) > OK > 6) (b-bbar correlation) > I suggest adding in the paper a comment along the lines of what > you say in your reply > 7) (trigger response simulation) > I suggest saying so explicitly in the paper Both responses have been added to the text of the paper. See page 13, end of col. 1, (point 7) and page 14, second column (point 6). > Less important points: > 8) (repetition) > OK > 9) (Table I vs Table IV) > OK… > 10) (% in last line of Table IV) > OK > 11) (“strongly imply”) > OK We thank the referee for the care in reading the manuscript, and look forward to converging on these last items. # Upsilon Analysis in Au+Au 2007 ## Paper Title: Observation of Upsilon mesons in Au+Au collisions at sqrt(sNN) = 200 GeV Target Journal: PRC PAs: Rosi Reed, Debasish Das, Haidong Liu, Pibero Djawotho, Thomas Ullrich and Manuel Calderón de la Barca Sánchez. Figures. Links. Rosi Reed's Upsilon-related presentations. Abstract: We report on a measurement of the dielectron mass spectrum from 7 to 15 GeV/c2 at midrapidity in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 200 GeV. The main contributions to the spectrum in this range are the ϒ(1S+2S+3S) states as well as the Drell Yan and b-bbar continuum. We compare the ϒ yield to the measured cross-section measured in p+p, scaled by the number of binary collisions, to obtain a nuclear modification factor of RAA (1S+2S+3S) = 0.92 +/- 0.37 (stat.) +0 -0.14 (syst.). The measured yield, which is dominated by the ϒ(1S) state, is consistent with no suppression within the available statistics. Conclusion: We report on a measurement of the dielectron mass spectrum near the ϒ mass region with the STAR detector. Our result opens a new era of bottomonium studies in heavy-ion collisions. The yield of ϒ(1S+2S+3S) states in 0-60% central Au+Au collisions is found to be 83 +/- 17 (stat) +/- X (syst). Given a cross-section of ϒ in p+p of 114 pb, we find that the nuclear modification factor RAA for ϒ(1S+2S+3S) → e+e is 0.92 +/- 0.37 (stat.) +0 -0.14 (syst.). Our measured yield is dominated by the ϒ(1S), so our result indicates that this state shows little suppression in Au+Au collisions at RHIC energies. We see a slight indication of suppression in the 0-10% most central collisions, but more statistics are needed to make definite conclusions. Lattice QCD results on quarkonium suppression due to color screening indicate that the ϒ(1S) state survives to ~4Tc, so the observed yield places a model-dependent upper limit on the temperature reached in Au+Au collisions at RHIC. ## Figures: Figure 1a: The black histogram shows the η−φ radial distance R = √(Δη)2+(Δφ)2 where Δη and Δφ are the differences in η−φ between the candidate electron tracks in the TPC and the centroid of the triggered cluster in the BEMC. Figure 1b: The E/p distribution for towers between 6.0 < E < 7.0 GeV, and tracks which have satisfied the conditions R < 0.04 and -2.0 < nσelectron < 3.0. An electron should leave all of its energy in the calorimeter, so we would expect this distribution to be a Gaussian centered about 1. The Energy measurment includes contributions from the underlying-event, which is high in Au+Au collisions, shifting the E/p peak to values greater than 1. The tail at high E/p results from pi0 events, as the Upsilon trigger also selects dijet events. Figure 4: Invariant mass spectrum for unlike-sign (closed circles) and like-sign (line histogram) electron pairs. The like-sign spectra were combined as B = 2√N++N--. Figure 5: The solid circles depict the invariant-mass spectrum after subtraction of the like-sign combinatorial background. The fit (solid line: functional form; dashed histogram: integral in each bin) includes contributions from the ϒ states, as well as Drell-Yan and b-bbar. The ϒs are represented in the fit by three Crystal-Ball functions. The dot-dashed curve illustrates the Drell-Yan and b-bbar continuum as extracted in the fit. # Invariant Mass 0-60% Centrality From ntuple generated on 5/25/2010. Macro MacroUpsAAInvMassMakeHistosFromTree06012010.C is attached. Figure 1: Invariant mass plots for 0-60% centrality. Generated with cuts -1.4<nSigmaElectron<3.0, 0.8<E/p<1.4, refMult>47. m_0 shfit was calculated to be 6.36+/-0.20 and wdith is 1.10+/-0.15. For 8<=m<=11 n+- = 258, n++ = 90, n-- = 74. Figure 2: Invariant Mass versus rapdity for 0-60% centrality. For refMult > 50 all values remained the same. For refMult>44, n+- =259 but everything else remained the same. This indicates that the systematic uncertainty on dN/dy for the 0-60% centrality is extremely small. 0-10% Figure 3: Invariant mass plots for 0-10% with the same cuts as Figure 1 except refMult>430. m_0shift = 6.39 +/- 0.25 and width 0.99 +/- 0.15. n+- = 112, n-- = 28, n++ = 37. Figure 4: Invariant mass versus rapidty for 0-10% centrality. For refMult>449 m_0 shift = 6.50 +/- 0.32 width = 1.05 +/- 0.18 n+- = 104, n-- = 28, n++ = 35 For refMult>411 m_0 shift 6.41 +/- 0.28 width = 1.10 +/- 0.17 n+- = 140, n-- = 35, n++ = 44 ref>449 N++ = 34 N-- = 28 N+- = 98 ref>411 N++ = 43 N-- = 35 N+- = 133 Figure 5: Invariant mass plots for 10-60% with the same cuts as Figure 1 except 47<refMult<430. m_0shift = 6.20 +/- 0.33 and width 1.16 +/- 0.29. n+- = 146, n-- = 46, n++ = 53. The lower cut in refMult does not change the value much, see discussion for Figures 1 and 2. If we vary the higher refMult cut, the results are: 47<ref<449 N++ = 56 N-- = 46 N+- = 157 47<ref<411 N++ = 46 N-- = 39 N+- = 125 For the 3 cases, we can calculate the signal (upsilon+DY+b-bbar) as: 0-10% S = 48 +/- 13(stat) +7/-12 (sys) 10-60% S = 47 +/-16(stat) +8/-7 (sys) 0-60% S = 95 +/- 21(stat) +1/-0 (sys) Where the systematic errors here are only related to the uncertainty in the centrality definition. The uncertainty in the efficiency due to the centrality selection will be calculated using embedding. I looked at the differences in the yield from data because the refMult distribution of upislon candidates is drastically different than the triggered or minbias distribution. It is heavily weighted towards the central end, which is why uncertainty on the cut for 60% central events doesn't make a large difference. We don't really have any upsilon candidate events with refMult < 47 (candidate defined as a trigger cluster with tracks extrapolated to the clusters with basis PID cuts). In the 0-60% centrality case, we unfortunately have a downward fluctuation in the background curve right under the upsilon peak. Instead of using the background histogram, I populated a histogram using the fit to the background and filled it with the same number of counts as the original background. I then set the error bars in each bin of the new histogram to the same values as in the original background histogram. Figure 5: Purple histogram on the left is the created histogram and the histogram on the right is the subtracted histogram using the purple histogram instead of the red background histogram. The resulting counts are 101 in the signal region. The number when using the background histogram is 103. # Invariant Mass fits In order to calculate the yield of the Upsilon (1S+2S+3S) state, we need to be able to subtract out the contribution from Drell Yan (DY) and the b-bbar continuum. This is difficult because the yields are not known precisely for this mass range in p+p, and in Au+Au the b-bbar continuum is hypothesized to experience some supression. 0-60% Centrality First, fit leaving the amplitude for the DY, b-bbar and total upsilon yield free. The ratio of the 1S, 2S and 3S states is kept the same as in p+p. Figure 1: 0-60% centrality fit with 3 free parameter, the yield of DY, b-bbar and upislon. The chi^2/dof for this fit is 1.28. The number of b-bbar counts is 0, and the number of DY counts is 1.15 +/- 22.3. The upsilon yield in 5<m<16 from the fit is 88.2+/-17.7 and is 100.4+/-20.2 from a bin-by-bin counting. Given our statistics and the very similar shape of the DY and b-bbar curve, the fit in Figure 1 convinced me that it is best to fit with only 1 parameter that is the sum of the DY and b-bbar background. Next, the question must be asked, do we see any evidence for upsilons in this region? Or can we explain the entire unlike sign subtracted yield by the combination of Drell-Yan and b-bbar background? Figure 2: 0-60% Centrality fit with only the DY and b-bbar background. It is obvious that this fit can not explain the peak, which indicates that we do observe Upsilons in Au+Au collisions. The chi^2/dof was 2.56. The yield of b-bbar was 12.7 +/- 25.3 and the DY yield was 11.2 +/- 24.4. The total counts in the region 8<m<11 is 94, which is much larger than the yield from the fit. Figure 3: Fit to data assuming that there is no Drell-Yan or b-bbar background. This fit will give the largest yield of upsilons and will be used for the systematic uncertainty. The chi^2/dof is 1.14. The upsilon yield in 5<m<16 is 88.9+/- 16.3 by fit and 101.6 +/- 18.7 by a bin by bin counting method. If we assume no suppression of a particular physics process, we are assuming RAA = 1. Rearranging this equation gives us: In our p+p paper, we quote a combined yield of (sigma DY + sigma b-bbar )||y|<0.5, 8<m<11 GeV/c^2 = 38 ± 24 pb. For 0-60% NmbAA = 1.14e9 and Nbin = 395. Sigma_pp is 42 mb at sqrt(s)=200 GeV. This means the number of expected DY and b-bbar counts in the 8<m<11 GeV mass range is (1.14e9)x395x38e-12/42e-3 = 407 +/- 257 if Nbin scaling were true. If we assume the efficiency for the DY and b-bbar->e+e- is the same as the upsilon within this range, we can use the calculated upsilon efficiency of 4.4%. This means we'd expect to observe 18+/- 11 DY and b-bbar counts in 8<m<11. The cross section for Upsilon(1S+2S+3S) was reported as 114 +/- 38(stat) pb, over all ranges. Doing the same calculation, we'd expect 1222 +/- 407 counts if Nbin scaling were true. With the calculated efficiency, this number becomes: 54 +/- 18 counts. # L2 Parameters Figure 1: Red points are the bit-shifted adc-pedestal value of the tower with the highest adc value. The blue curve is from embedding series 120-123 upsilon 1S scaled by 5000. # NmbAA calculation NmbAA = #upsilon minbias events in the given centrality bin upsilon minbias trigger ID 200611 Total # of ups-mb events = sum #ups-mb(i)*prescale(i) where i is done on a run by run basis To calculate this #, I used Jamie's bytrig.pl script, which returns a cross-section per run # This cross-section was calculated assuming a "minbias" cross-section of 3.12 b. This number is comes from Jamies assumption that 10 b is the ZDC cross-section, but 3 b is from E&M processes that don't produce any particles and won't fire the vpd-mb trigger. 7 b is the hadronic cross-section as calculated by Glauber, but the vpd will miss about 1 b in the peripheral region. Then, the vpd vertex cut will remove ~1/2 of all triggers giving a cross-section ~3.12 b. This number is very ad hoc, but is necessary to use in order to get the # of events from the macro. To get from the integrated luminosity per run number to the # of minbias events, one calculates int L(i)/min-bias cross section = #minbias triggers(i) x prescale(i). I have confirmed that this works by checking some run numbers calculated by the script versus the runlog. Summing over all "good" runs gives a total number of upsilon minbias triggers x prescale of 1.57 x 10^9. Attached is a spread sheet of each run number, the number of L2 upsilon triggers, the integrated luminosity per run # and the # of ups-mb triggers x prescale for that run #. This information was presented to the HF list in presentation at: http://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/HF05112010.ppt The error on this number is essentially zero because the statistical error of a number of order 10^9 is of order 1/10000, see: http://www.star.bnl.gov/HyperNews-star/protected/get/heavy/2753.html for discussion. Next, we need the number of these events that are in the 0-60% or the 0-10% centrality bin. Since the vpd is inefficient for peripheral collisions, the total number of upsilon minbias events should be higher than what we see in the detector. First, we need to know the reference multiplicity cut for these centrality bins. See: http://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/HF06012010.ppt ## Centrality This trigger could not use the standard STAR centrality definitions because the base upsilon minbias trigger had a much wider vpd cut then the +/-30 cm that the more generic minbias trigger had. Beyond 30 cm the acceptance of the TPC changes, which means that the reference Multiplicity will not be constant. The centrality definitions are calculated by integrating a glauber model calculation of the reference Multiplicity. First, I used Hiroshi Masui's code "run_glauber_mc.C" which runs the actual glauber simulation to generate Ncoll and Npart for 100k throws. The default values are for AuAu 200 GeV. The created root file along with the refMult from the upsilon minbias data set are then analyzed with NbdFitMaker. This code attempts to take Npart and Ncol and turn those into a reference multiplicity by using the two component model to describe the reference multiplicity. See Hiroshi's talk at: http://www.star.bnl.gov/protected/bulkcorr/hmasui/2010/centrality_39GeV_Apr15/masui_centrality_AuAu_39GeV.pdf dN/deta = npp[(1-x)Npart/2 + xNcoll] and is convoluted with a negative binomial distribution with 2 free parameters. The calculated RefMult is then matched to the data refMult at high refMults where the trigger efficiency should be 100%. Minuit is not used because it doeos not converge. I found that it was difficult to get these distributions to match exactly at the high end. Stepping through the allowed range of parameters, I found that mu = 2.2, x = 0.145 and k = 2.0 gave the closest result of chi^2/dof of 2.2 (for refMult>100). This resulted in a total efficiency of 84.6% and 100% for centrality 0-60%. Changing x and k by a reasonable amount did not significantly change the centrality defintion. Changing mu did change the centrality defintion slightly. Figure 1: RefMult distributions versus changes in mu. The default mu was set to 2.4 which is ~npp the mean multipliclity of p+p collisions. This was changed to match the upsilon trigger minbias refmult distribution. The calculated refMult cuts are > 47+/-3 for 0-60% centrality and >430+/-19 for 0-10% centrality. Output and input files for this calculation can be found at: /star/u/rjreed/UpsilonAA2007Paper/GlauberRefMult/ Hiroshi's code used for this exercise can be found at: /star/u/rjreed/glauber/Try02/ Attached to this note is the "Centcut.C" macro used to generate Figure 1 and calculate the centrality versus refMult and the systematic uncertainty in that number. Also of interest is the refMult distributions of the L2 upsilon triggered data set and the candidates. I normalized all these distributions to the glauber calculation at the high end. This is especially true of the candidate distribution as there can be more than one candidate per vertex. For these purposes, I limited the distributions to the index 0 vertices. Figure 2: Normalized refMult distributions for the upsilon minbias trigger in black, the glauber calculation in red, the L2 upsilon triggered sample in pink and the upsilon candidates in blue. Candidates were chosen from index 0 vertices where the two daughter particles had an R<0.04, -2<nsigmaElectron<3 and E/p<3. Macro used to generate this graph, drawRef2.C is attached to this post. Another number that is needed from this calculation is Nbin, the number of binary collsisions. I altered Hiroshi's code so that it created a text file with Ncoll, Nbin and refMult. This allowed me to calculate the average Nbin for a particular refMult. For 0-60% centrality, Nbin = 395 +/- 6.5(sys) and for 0-10% centrality Nbin = 964 +/- 27(sys). Additional systematic uncertainties due to the cross-section, Woods-Saxon distribution and exclusion region need to be checked. Attached is a spreadsheet I made from the output text file that allowed me to calculate these numbers. The values were generated with the mu=2.2 k=2.0 x=0.145 values, but the different centrality cuts were applied. The corrected yield for upsilons is calculated as (1/NmbAA)*(dN/dy). We can cancel out the base minbias efficiency from this number by using the exact same cuts for NmbAA and dN/dy. This means that we merely need to calculate the number of minbias triggers that pass the reference multiplicity cut. For 0-60% centrality, NmbAA = 1.14e9 +0.2e9/-0.1e9 (sys due to centrailty determination) and for 0-10% centrality NmbAA = 1.78e8 +0.25e8/-0.24e8 (sys due to centrality determination) # Upsilon Analysis in d+Au 2008 ## Upsilon yield and nuclear modification factor in d+Au collisions at sqrt(s)=200 GeV. PAs: Anthony Kesich, and Manuel Calderon de la Barca Sanchez. • Dataset QA • Trigger ID, runs • Trigger ID = 210601 • ZDC East signal + BEMC HT at 18 (Et>4.3 GeV) + L2 Upsilon • Total Sampled Luminosity: 32.66 nb^-1; 1.216 Mevents • http://www.star.bnl.gov/protected/common/common2008/trigger2008/lum_pertriggerid_dau2008.txt • • Run by Run QA • Integrated Luminosity estimate • Systematic Uncertainty • Acceptance (Check with Kurt Hill) • Raw pT, y distribution of Upsilon • Accepted pT, y distribution of Upsilons • Acceptance • Raw pT, eta distribution of e+,e- daughters • Accepted pT, eta distribution of e+,e- daughters • Comparison plots between single-electron embedding, Upsilon embedding • L0 Trigger • DSM-ADC Distribution (data, i.e. mainly background) • DSM-ADC Distribution (Embedding) For accepted Upsilons, before and after L0 trigger selection • Systematic Uncertainty (Estimate of possible calibration and resolution systematic offsets). • "highest electron/positron Et" distribution from embedding (Accepted Upsilons, before and after L0 trigger selection) • L2 Trigger • E1 Cluster Et distribution (data, i.e. mainly background) • E1 Cluster Et distribution (embedding, L0 triggered, before and after all L2 trigger cuts) • L2 pair opening angle (cos theta) data (i.e. mainly background) • L2 pair opening angle (cos theta) embedding. Needs map of (phi,eta)_MC to (phi,eta)_L2 from single electron embedding. Then a map from r1=(phi,eta, R_emc) to r1=(x,y,z) so that one can do cos(theta^L2) = r1.dot(r2)/(r1.mag()*r2.mag()). Plot cos theta distribution for L0 triggered events, before and after all L2 trigger cuts. (Kurt) • L2 pair invariant mass from data (i.e. mainly background) • L2 pair invariant mass from embedding. Needs simulation as for cos(theta), so that one can do m^2 = 2 * E1 * E2 * (1 - cos(theta)) where E1 and E2 are the L2 cluster energies. Plot the invariant mass distribution fro L0 triggered events, before and after all L2 trigger cuts. (Check with Kurt) • PID • dE/dx • dE/dx vs p for the Upsilon triggered data • nsigma_dE/dx calibration of means and sigmas (done by C. Powell for his J/Psi work) • Cut optimization (Maximization of electron effective signal) • Final cuts for use in data analysis • E/p • E/p distributions for various p bins • Study of E calibration and resolution between data and embedding (for L0 Trigger systematic uncertainty) • Resolution and comparison with embedding (for cut efficiency estimation) • Yield extraction • Cross section calculation. • Yield, dN/dy • Integrated luminosity (for 1/N_events, where N_events were the total events sampled by the L0 trigger) • Efficiency (Numbers for each state, and cross-section-branching-ratio-weighted average) • Uncertainty • pt Distribution (invariant, i.e. 1/N_event 1/2pi, 1/pt dN/dpt dy) in |y|<0.5 vs pt) This might need one to do the CB, DY, bbbar fit in pt bins. • Nuclear Modification Factor • Estimation of <Npart> for the dataset, and uncertainty. • Putting it all together: dN/dy in dAu, Npart, Luminosity (N_events), divided by the pp numbers (dsigma/dy, sigma_pp) • Plot of R_dAu vs y, comparison with theory • Plot of R_dAu vs Npart, together with Au+Au • Plot of R_dAu vs pt. Try to do together with Au+Au (minbias, maybe in centrality bins, but maybe not enough stats) # Upsilon Analysis in p+p 2009 ## Upsilon cross-section in p+p collisions at sqrt(sNN) = 200 GeV, 2009 data. PAs: Kurt Hill, Andrew Peterson, Gregory Wimsatt, Anthony Kesich, Rosi Reed, Manuel Calderon de la Barca Sanchez. • Dataset QA (Andrew Peterson) • Trigger ID, runs • Run by Run QA • Integrated Luminosity estimate • Systematic Uncertainty • Acceptance (Kurt Hill) • Raw pT, y distribution of Upsilon • Accepted pT, y distribution of Upsilons • Acceptance • Raw pT, eta distribution of e+,e- daughters • Accepted pT, eta distribution of e+,e- daughters • Comparison plots between single-electron embedding, Upsilon embedding • L0 Trigger • DSM-ADC Distribution (data, i.e. mainly background) (Drew) • DSM-ADC Distribution (Embedding) For accepted Upsilons, before and after L0 trigger selection • Systematic Uncertainty (Estimate of possible calibration and resolution systematic offsets). • "highest electron/positron Et" distribution from embedding (Accepted Upsilons, before and after L0 trigger selection) • L2 Trigger • E1 Cluster Et distribution (data, i.e. mainly background) • E1 Cluster Et distribution (embedding, L0 triggered, before and after all L2 trigger cuts) • L2 pair opening angle (cos theta) data (i.e. mainly background) • L2 pair opening angle (cos theta) embedding. Needs map of (phi,eta)_MC to (phi,eta)_L2 from single electron embedding. Then a map from r1=(phi,eta, R_emc) to r1=(x,y,z) so that one can do cos(theta^L2) = r1.dot(r2)/(r1.mag()*r2.mag()). Plot cos theta distribution for L0 triggered events, before and after all L2 trigger cuts. (Kurt) • L2 pair invariant mass from data (i.e. mainly background) • L2 pair invariant mass from embedding. Needs simulation as for cos(theta), so that one can do m^2 = 2 * E1 * E2 * (1 - cos(theta)) where E1 and E2 are the L2 cluster energies. Plot the invariant mass distribution fro L0 triggered events, before and after all L2 trigger cuts. (Kurt) • PID (Greg) • dE/dx • dE/dx vs p for the Upsilon triggered data • nsigma_dE/dx calibration of means and sigmas • Cut optimization (Maximization of electron effective signal) • Final cuts for use in data analysis • E/p • E/p distributions for various p bins • Study of E calibration and resolution between data and embedding (for L0 Trigger systematic uncertainty) • Resolution and comparison with embedding (for cut efficiency estimation) (Kurt and Greg) • Yield extraction • Invariant mass distributions • Unlike-sign and Like-sign inv. mass (Drew) • Like-sign subtracted inv. mass (Drew) • Crystal-Ball shapes from embedding/simulation. (Kurt) Crystal-ball parameters to be used in fit (Drew) • Fit to Like-sign subtracted inv. mass, using CB, DY, b-bbar. • Contour plot (1sigma and 2sigma) of b-bbar cross section vs. DY cross section. (Drew) • Upsilon yield estimation and stat. + fit error. (Drew) • (2S+3S)/1S (Drew) • pT Spectra (Drew) • Cross section calculation. • Yield • Integrated luminosity • Efficiency (Numbers for each state, and cross-section-branching-ratio-weighted average) • Uncertainty • h+/h- Corrections # Upsilon Analysis in p+p 2009 - L0 Trigger 2009 BTOW Calibrations # L0 Trigger: Systematic Uncertainty 2009 BTOW Calibrations # Upsilon Analysis in p+p 2009 - PID • PID (Greg) • dE/dx • dE/dx vs p for the Upsilon triggered data • nsigma_dE/dx calibration of means and sigmas • Electron Mean: -0.263 • Electron Width: - 1.016 • Pion Width: 0.943 • Hadron Width: 1.071 • Cut optimization (Maximization of electron effective signal) • Final cuts for use in data analysis • E/p • E/p distributions for various p bins • Study of E calibration and resolution between data and embedding (for L0 Trigger systematic uncertainty) • Resolution and comparison with embedding (for cut efficiency estimation) (Kurt and Greg) # Upsilon Analysis in p+p 2009 - pT Spectra ## Upsilon cross-section in p+p collisions at sqrt(sNN) = 200 GeV, 2009 data - pT Spectra Note: All data plots are currently using -2 < nσe < 3 which is not optimized for this analysis! Note: All data plots are using every run; run-by-run QA has not yet been completed! • pT Spectra (Drew) • First stab at pT spectrum of Upsilons from ee daughters. This does not have efficiency corrections yet. • DY and bbbar are "subtracted" by multiplying the bin by the ratio of Yeild(Upsilon)/Yeild(Upsilon+DY+bbbar). • The errors are added in quadrature, which is correct only to first order for this DY and bbbar "subtraction". • <pT> is just the mean of the bin, not the mean of the hits in the bin • Improvements on the way • pQCD Upsilon pT Spectra • p+p √S = 200 GeV • Pythia 8.1.53 with the following cuts: • Upsilon -> ee pair • Can only detect this decay channel • Ee1 > 4.0 GeV, Ee2 > 2.5 GeV • L2 trigger • need to verify the actual trigger.. changed from 2006 to 2008/9 • e1| < 0.5, |ηe2| < 0.5 • mid-rapidity • cos(θe1e2) < 0.5 • Ensure the electrons are roughly back-to-back • pT e1 > 200 MeV, pT e2 > 200 MeV • 2.5 M p+p->bbbar events for each pTHatMin • 1 GeV <= pTHatMin <= 10 GeV in steps of 0.10 GeV • Boosts the statistics of less likely collisions • Stacked histograms together • normalization factor: (cross section at X GeV) / (cross section at 1.0 GeV) • First bin is basically divided by 0 and is cutoff # Upsilon Analysis in p+p 2009 data - Acceptance • Acceptance (Kurt Hill) - Upsilon acceptance aproximated using a simulation that constructs Upsilons (flat in pT and y), lets them decay to e+e- pairs in the Upsilon's rest frame, and uses detector response functions generated from a single electron embedding to model detector effects. An in depth study of this method will also be included. • Raw pT, y distribution of Upsilon • Accepted pT, y distribution of Upsilons • Acceptance • Raw pT, eta distribution of e+,e- daughters • Accepted pT, eta distribution of e+,e- daughters • Comparison plots between single-electron embedding, Upsilon embedding # Upsilon Analysis in p+p 2009 data - Acceptance • Acceptance (Kurt Hill) • Raw pT, y distribution of Upsilon • Accepted pT, y distribution of Upsilons • Acceptance • Raw pT, eta distribution of e+,e- daughters • Accepted pT, eta distribution of e+,e- daughters • Comparison plots between single-electron embedding, Upsilon embedding # Upsilon Analysis in p+p 2009 data - Dataset QA • Dataset QA (Andrew Peterson) • Trigger ID, runs • Name Trigger id Lum [pb-1] P4 L [pb-1] Nevents [M] First Run Last Run Description Stream •  Upsilon 22.855 1.978 1.381 10114071 10180030 Upsilon, reading ETOW BTOW TOF ESMD TPX BSMD upsilon Upsilon 240640 1.293 0.105 0.049 10114071 10117052 Broken, do not use upsilon Upsilon 240641 21.563 1.873 1.331 10117085 10180030 18 (4.3 GeV) < BHT && BBCMB && Upsilon at L2 upsilon • Run by Run QA • X-Axis is scaled because ROOT seemed to not want to fit anything that small • Z-Axis on first 2 and Y-Axis on second 2 are weighted by 1/(error on trigger ratio) • Once I have completed going through the run logs to throw out bad runs on that alone I will fit with Gaussians and keep up to 3 sigma • Runs thrown out: • 0 Magnetic Field (how did this even get flagged for Upsilon?) • 10172027 • Δ Integrated Luminocity: 0.024188 pb-1 • Fewer than 10,000 events in run • 10131011, 10137047, 10142045, 10143046, 10144033, 10144097, 10169015, 10172086 , 10173054 • Δ Integrated Luminocity: 0.000276 pb-1 • Marked as "bad" in the shift log • 10127044, 10128037, 10128051, 10128064, 10155017 • Δ Integrated Luminocity: 4e-06 pb-1 • Note: only 10127044 was presnet in the Luminocity files from Jamie • Integrated Luminosity estimate: 21.539 pb-1 • Systematic Uncertainty # Upsilon analysis in p+p 2009 - Yield Extraction ## Upsilon cross-section in p+p collisions at sqrt(sNN) = 200 GeV, 2009 data - Yield Extraction Note: All plots are currently using -1.8 < nσe < 3 which is not optimized for this analysis! Note: All plots are using every run using Trigger ID 240641; run-by-run QA has not yet been completed or implemented! • Invariant mass distributions • Unlike-sign and Like-sign inv. mass (Drew) • Like-sign subtracted inv. mass (Drew) • Fit is from 5 GeV/c2 to 16 GeV/c2 • Crystal-Ball shapes from embedding/simulation. (Kurt) • 0<pt<10 & 0<|y|<1  Param 1S 2S 3S alpha 1.21 1.21 1.27 n 1.85 1.96 1.89 mu 9.46 10.02 10.35 sigma 0.124 0.145 0.154 • 0<pt<10 & 0<|y|<0.5 Param 1S 2S 3S alpha 1.18 1.16 1.21 n 1.83 2.06 2.04 mu 9.46 10.02 10.35 sigma 0.125 0.143 0.150 0<pt<10 & 0.5<|y|<1 • Param 1S 2S 3S alpha 1.21 1.21 1.27 n 1.85 1.96 1.89 mu 9.46 10.02 10.35 sigma 0.124 0.145 0.154 • 0<pt<2 & 0<|y|<0.5 • Param 1S 2S 3S alpha 1.30 1.43 1.12 n 1.81 1.65 2.78 mu 9.46 10.02 10.35 sigma 0.119 0.139 0.141 • 0<pt<2 & 0.5<|y|<1 • Param 1S 2S 3S alpha 1.72 1.53 1.25 n 1.23 1.86 2.37 mu 9.46 10.02 10.35 sigma 0.141 0.151 0.163 • 2<pt<4 & 0<|y|<0.5 • Param 1S 2S 3S alpha 1.30 1.14 1.31 n 1.72 2.12 1.85 mu 9.46 10.02 10.35 sigma 0.126 0.134 0.155 2<pt<4 & 0.5<|y|<1 • Param 1S 2S 3S alpha 1.59 1.25 1.65 n 1.52 2.13 1.23 mu 9.46 10.02 10.35 sigma 0.135 0.139 0.159 • 4<pt<6 & 0<|y|<0.5 • Param 1S 2S 3S alpha 1.11 1.22 1.30 n 1.97 2.17 2.07 mu 9.46 10.02 10.35 sigma 0.117 0.152 0.155 • 4<pt<6 & 0.5<|y|<1 • Param 1S 2S 3S alpha 1.17 1.60 1.30 n 2.20 1.46 1.66 mu 9.46 10.02 10.35 sigma 0.136 0.179 0.162 • 6<pt<8 & 0<|y|<0.5 • Param 1S 2S 3S alpha 1.08 1.11 .984 n 2.07 2.18 2.82 mu 9.46 10.02 10.35 sigma 0.138 0.154 0.154 • 6<pt<8 & 0.5<|y|<1 • Param 1S 2S 3S alpha 1.06 1.22 1.03 n 2.16 2.16 2.75 mu 9.46 10.02 10.35 sigma 0.133 0.166 0.165 • 0<pt<2 & 0<|y|<1 • Param 1S 2S 3S alpha 1.39 1.46 1.18 n 1.66 1.63 2.42 mu 9.46 10.02 10.35 sigma 0.124 0.142 0.146 • 2<pt<4 & 0<|y|<1 • Param 1S 2S 3S alpha 1.33 1.16 1.35 n 1.72 2.10 1.78 mu 9.46 10.02 10.35 sigma 0.128 0.135 0.152 • 4<pt<6 & 0<|y|<1 • Param 1S 2S 3S alpha 1.10 1.25 1.32 n 2.06 1.90 1.93 mu 9.46 10.02 10.35 sigma 0.121 0.157 0.157 • 6<pt<8 & 0<|y|<1 • Param 1S 2S 3S alpha 1.08 1.25 1.00 n 2.06 2.18 2.71 mu 9.46 10.02 10.35 sigma 0.138 0.156 0.156 • Crystal-ball parameters to be used in fit (Drew) • Fit to Like-sign subtracted inv. mass, using CB, DY, b-bbar. • Contour plot (1sigma and 2sigma) of b-bbar cross section vs. DY cross section. (Drew) • This plot is flawed -- using 2006 background fit and integrated luminocity • Upsilon yield estimation and stat. + fit error. (Drew) • (2S+3S)/1S • Method 1 • Fix the 1S, 2S, and 3S to PDG ratios • f = (CB1 + (CB2+CB3)*B ) / N • B = (pp2009 2S+3S) / (PDG 2S+3S) • Method 2 • Fix the 1S, 2S, and 3S to PDG ratios • f = (CB1 + CB2*B2 + CB3*B3) / N • Need to think more about what B2 and B3 are • B2 = pp2009(2S / 1S)? • B3 = pp2009(3S / 1S)? # Upsilon cross-section in p+p collisions at sqrt(sNN) = 200 GeV, 2009 data - h+/h- h+/h-: Comparison Between the Reproduction vs the Original Production ~10% of the 2009 p+p 200 GeV was reproduced (http://www.star.bnl.gov/public/comp/prod/prodsum/production2009_200Gev_Single.P11id.html). We ran over the available Upsilon stream reproduction and compared with the results from the original production. The reproduction was generally found to have a different index for each set of electron pairs, so the following cuts were used to match Upsilon candidates: Same Run ID and Event ID |Delta Vz| < 1.0 cm Same Charge (daughter 1 reproduction = daughter 1 original production, daughter 2 reproduction = daughter 2 original production) -1.29 < nSigmaElectron 3.0 (used in the analysis for the original production) We projected the m_{old} over the range of 8 to 11 GeV to see the effect on the Upsilon candidate: There is a smearing of mass, ~1/3 GeV, with the reproduction compared to the original production. We specifically chose the 8 < m_{old} < 11 GeV/c^2 range to see how the Upsilons would be affected for a cross section measurement. # Upsilon Paper: pp, d+Au, Au+Au Page to collect the information for the Upsilon paper based on the analysis of Anthony (4/24): in data, the electrons were selected via 0<nSigE<3, R<0.02. For pt<5, we fit to 0<adc<303. For pt>5, 303<adc<1000. In embedding, the only selections are the p range, R<0.02, and eleAcceptTrack. The embedding pt distro was reweighted to match the data. Anthony (4/5): Added new Raa plot with comparison to strickland's supression models Anthony (4/4): I attached some dAu cross section plots on this page. The eps versions are on nuclear. The cross sections are as follows: all: 25.9±4.0 nb 0-2: 1.8±1.7 nb 2-4: 10.9±2.9 nb 4-6. 5.2±5.3 nb 6-8: 0.57±0.59 nb I expect the cross sections to change once I get new efficiences from embedding, but not by a whole lot. Drew (4/6): Got Kurt's new lineshapes, efficiencies, and double-ERF parameters today. Uploading the fits to them. I'm not sure I believe the fits... Bin-by-Bin Counting Cross Section by pT (GeV/c): |y|<1.0 all: 134.6 ± 10.6 pb 0-2: 27.6 ± 6.3 pb 2-4: 39.1 ± 5.8 pb 4-6: 19.9 ± 3.8 pb 6-8: 13.6 ± 5.1 pb |y|<0.5 all: 119.2 ± 12.4 pb 0-2: 23.8 ± 6.8 pb 2-4: 35.9 ± 7.4 pb 4-6: 19.0 ± 4.5 pb 6-8: 14.2 ± 4.6 pb The double ERF is a turn-off from the L2 trigger's mass cut. Kurt used the form: ( {erf*[(m-p1)/p2]+1}*{erf*[(p3-m)/p4]+1} )/2, but I used /4 in the actual fit because each ERF can be at most 2. By fits are also half a bin shifted from Tony's, we'll need to agree on it at some point. The |y|<1 are divided by 2 units in rapidity, and the |y|<0.5 by 1 unit. # Upsilon 200 GeV AuAu 2010 E/p Cut Efficiencies We cut on E/p for our candidate daughter electrons and positrons for the AuAu analysis. To find the efficiencies of these cuts, we find the efficiency of the cuts on embedded single electrons from the file AuAu2010_singleE_emb_4May12.root, located in /home/khill/upsAuAu/ on the nuclear server, appropriately modified to match the data, as described below. We used data from the file AuAu10_ups_10Jun12.root, located in /home/kesich/AuAu2010_Upsilons/ on the nuclear server. For the first, L0, daughter from the data we select only positively charged particles with nSigmaElectron > 1 and with cluster energies between 5 and 6. We compared these to embedded electrons with Adc > 303 and cluster energy between 5 and 6. They also must have been reconstructed in the tpc and have been from an event with at least one fired calorimeter tower. We plotted both these real particles' and embedded electrons' Ecluster/p spectrum. We fit the data around the peak (from 0.7 to 1.5) and the embedding in the full range to gaussians. However, the embedded particles were modified to match the data. Firstly, since the embedding was thrown flat in momentum, we weighed the momentum spectrum to the data. Secondly, we smeared the Ecluster values to better simulate the resolution of the calorimeter. Thirdly, we still found the mean of this modified electron embedding signal to not fall on top of the peak in the data. Realizing that contamination from other particles in the event can add to the measured energy from the calorimeter, we felt justified in simply shifting the mean of the electron embedding to match this peak. To instantiate these last two modifications, we convolved the embedding E/p spectrum with another gaussian, iteratively tweaking the mean and width of the convolving gaussian until the embedding's and data's gaussian fits matched. For the second daughter from the data, we again select only positively charged particles with nSigmaElectron > 1. We found that the second daughters' cluster energies were not well correlated to their momentum, indicating contamination from particles unrelated to Upsilon production. Note that the energy requirement of the L0 trigger on the first daughter probably ensures the much cleaner correlation of momentum and cluster energy for the first daughters. Tower energies did, however, show close equality to momentum values in the second daughter. Cutting on tower energy between 5 and 6 provided inadequate statistics so we cut instead on tower energy from 3 to 4. The embedded electrons were cut with Adc > 303, as for the comparison with the first daughters, but now necessarily with tower energy between 3 and 4 for comparison to the second daughters. We fit the data around the peak (now, from 0.7 to 1.4) and the embedding in the full range to gaussians, like for the first daughters. A similar process for analysis of the first daughters was done with the second daughters to match embedding to the data; the embeddding momentum spectrum was weighed to data and a gaussian was convolved over the embedding, as described above. For the first daughter, we cut on Ecluster/p between 0.7 and 1.4. One can calculate the resultant efficiency by considering our matched embedding distribution in two ways. Firstly, we can integrate the gaussian fit to the embedding between the cuts and divide by its integral over all E/p. Secondly, we can integrate the histrogram between the cuts and divide by the histograms integral over all E/p. Using the fit, the efficiency of the first daughter's cut is calculated to be ~90%. Using the histogram, the efficiency is calculated to be ~88%. For the second daughter, we cut on Etower/p between 0.7 and 1.4. We can calculate the efficiency, again, in two ways. Using the fit, the efficiency is calculated to be ~87%. Using the histogram, the efficiency is ~84%. # Upsilon pp, dAu, AuAu Paper Documents This page is for collecting the following documents related to the Upsilon pp (2009), dAu (2008) and AuAu (2010) paper: • Paper Proposal (Most Recent: Version 3) • New in v3: Now says we're going for PLB and has the E772 and MC plots included. Also has |y|<1.0 results • Technical Note (Most Recent: Version 6) • New in v3: AuAu consistency analysis and expanded summary table • New in v4: Added JPsi study of linewidth and 1S numbers • New in v6 : Final version for paper as resubmitted to PLB • Paper Draft (Latest: Version 25) • New in v26: Updated with changes made in PLB proof • v25-resub: Version as re-submitted to PLB (no line numbers). • New in v25: Updated acknowledgements. • New in v24: Minor changes to discussion or TPC misalignment • New in v23.1: Added systematics to Fig. 3 • New in v23: Updated with comments from Lanny and Thomas. Changes are in red. • New in v22: Made changed based on GPC responses to our responses to the referees. Also, all Tables are now correct. Changes are in blue. • New in v21: Changed in response to PLB referee comments. Changed results to likelihood fits. Added binding energy plot. Tabs. II and III are NOT correct. • New in v20: ??? • New in v19: Updated with minor comments from Thomas on Nov 25. • New in v18: Incorporated lost changes from v16. Added 3 UC Davis undergrads to the author list. • New in v17: A few more changes from GPC comments and addition of AuAu cross sections • New in v16: Changes from GPC comments after collaboration review • New in v15: Collaboration review changes • New in v14: English QA changes • New in v13: Mostly minor edits suggested by Lanny and Thomas • New in v12: Updated the MC section to addredd |y|<0.5. Also did some other, minor graphwork on fig 3b • New in v11: Updated with latest comments from the GPC. Official version before the first GPC meeting • New in v10: Updated from PWG discussion. Cleaned and enchanced plots • New in v9: Cleaned up v8 • New in v8: Added analysis of 1S state and discussion of E772 • New in v7: Made many changes based on first round of GPC e-mails. Summaries of changes and responses can be found on the responses sub-page. • New in v6: Cleaned up most plots. Reworded end of intro. Cleaned up triggering threshold discussion. Added labels for subfigures. • New in v5.1: Made stylistic clarifications and fixed a few typos. Updated dAu mass spectrum legend to explain grey curve. • New in v5: PLB formatting and some plot clean-up • New in v4: E772 results and |y|<1.0 and |y|<0.5 both included for AuAu # Responses to Collaboration comments Thanks to all the people who submitted comments. These have helped to improve the draft. Please find the responses to the comments below. ## Comments from JINR (Stanislav Vokal) 1) Page 3, line 40, „The cross section for bottomonium production is smaller than that of charmonium [8-10]...“, check it, is there any cross section for bottomonium production in these papers? Answer: Both papers report a quarkonium result. The PHENIX papers quote a J/psi cross section of ~178 nb. Our paper from the 2006 data quotes the Upsilon cross section at 114 pb. 2) Page 3, lines 51-52, „compared to s_ccbar approx 550 - 1400 mb [13, 14]). ...“. It should be checked, in [13] s is about 0.30 mb and in [14], Tab.VII, s is about 0.551 – 0.633 mb.“. Answer: In Ref. 13, the 0.3 mb is for dsigma/dy, not for sigma_cc. To obtain sigma_cc, one has to use a multiplicative factor of 4.7 that was obtained from simulations (Pythia), as stated in that reference. This gives a cross section of ~ 1.4 mb, which is the upper value we quote (1400 \mu b). In reference 14, in Table VIII the low value of 550 \mu b is the lower value we use in the paper. So both numbers we quote are consistent with the numbers from those two references. 3) Page 3, line 78, „...2009 (p+p)...“ and line 80 „20.0 pb-1... “, In Ref. [10] the pp data taken during 2006 were used, 7.9 pb-1, it seems that this data sample was not included in the present analysis. Am I true? If yes – please explain, why? If the data from 2006 are included in the present draft, then add such information in the text, please. Answer: That is correct: the data from 2006 was not included in the present analysis. There were two major differences. The first difference is the amount of inner material. In 2006 (and 2007), the SVT was still in STAR. In 2008, 2009, and 2010, which are the runs we are discussing in this paper, there was no SVT. This makes the inner material different in 2006 compared to 2009, but it is kept the same in the entire paper. This is the major difference. The inner material has a huge effect on electrons because of bremsstrahlung, and this distorts the line shape of the Upsilons. The second difference is that the trigger in 2006 was different than in 2009. This difference in triggers is not insurmountable, but given the difference in the amount of inner material, it was not worth to try to join the two datasets. We have added a comment to the text about this: "All three datasets were taken with the same detector configuration. Note that the data from our previous pp result was not added to this analysis because the amount of material in the detector was different during 2006 than in all the three datasets discussed here, preventing a uniform data analysis." 4) Page 4, Fig.1, numbers on the y-axe should be checked, because in [10], Fig.10, are practically the same acounts, but the statistic is 3 times smaller; Answer: The number that matters is the counts in the Upsilon signal. In Fig. 10 of Ref. 10, there is a lot more combinatorial background (because of the aforementioned issue with the inner material), so when looking at the total counts one sees a similar number than in the present paper. However, in the case of the 2006 data, most of the counts are from background. The actual signal counts in the highest bin of the 2006 data are ~55-30 = 25, whereas the signal counts in the present paper are ~ 50 - 5 = 45 in the highest bin. When you also notice that the 2006 plot had bins that were 0.5 GeV/c^2 wide, compared to the narrower bins of 0.2 GeV/c^2 we are using in Figure 1 (a), it should now be clear that the 2009 data has indeed more statistics. 5) Page 5, line 31, „114 ± 38+23-14 pb [10]“, value 14 should 24; Answer: Correct. We have fixed this typo. Thank you. 6) Page 5, Fig.2, yee and yY should be identical; Answer: We will fix the figures to use one symbol for the rapidity of the upsilons throughout the paper. 7) Page 5, Fig.2 – description, „Results obtained by PHENIX are shown as filled tri-angles.“ à diamond; Answer: Fixed. 8) Page 6, Fig.3a, here should be hollow star for STAR 1S (dAu) as it is in Fig.3b; Answer: Fixed. 9) Page 8, line 7, „we find RAA(1S) = 0.44 ± ...“ à should be 0.54; Answer: Fixed. 10) Page 8, lines 9-12, „The ratio of RAA(1S) to RAA(1S+2S+3S) is consistent with an RAA(2S+3S) approximately equal to zero, as can be seen by examining the mass range 10-11 GeV/c2 in Fig. 4.“, it is not clear, check this phrase, please; Answer: We have modified this phrase to the following: "If 2S+3S states were completely dissociated in Au+Au collisions, then R_AA(1S+2S+3S) would be approximately equal toR_AA(1S) \times 0.69$. This is consistent with our observed R_AA values, and can also be inferred by examining the mass range 10--11 GeV/c^2 in Fig. 4, where no significant 2S or 3S signals are seen." 11) Page 8, line 26, „CNM“, it means Cold Nuclear Matter suppression? – should be explained in text; Answer: The explanation of the CNM acronym is now done in the Introduction. 12) Page 9, line 30-31, „The cross section in d+Au collisions is found to be = 22 ± 3(stat. + fit)+4- 3(syst.) nb.“, but there is no such results in the draft before; Answer: This result is now given in the same paragraph where the corresponding pp cross section is first stated, right after the description of Figure 1. 13) Page 9, line 34, „0.08(p+p syst.).“ à „0.07(p+p syst.).“, see p.7; Answer: Fixed. It was 0.08 14) Page 10, Ref [22], should be added: Eur. Phys. J C73, 2427 (2013); Answer: We added the published bibliography information to Ref [22]. 15) Page 10,, Ref [33] is missing in the draft. Answer: We have now removed it. It was left over from a previous version of the draft which included text that has since been deleted. ## Comments from Tsinghua 1) Replace 'Upsilon' in the title and text with the Greek symbol. Answer: Done. 2) use the hyphen consistently across the whole paper, for example, sometimes you use 'cold-nulcear matter', and at another place 'cold-nuclear-matter'. Another example is 'mid-rapidity', 'mid rapidity', 'midrapidity'... Answer: On the hyphenation, if the words are used as an adjectivial phrase, then those need to be hyphenated. In the phrase "the cold-nuclear-matter effects were observed", the words "cold-nuclear-matter" are modifying the word "effects", so they are hyphenated. However, from a previous comment we decided to use the acronym "CNM" for "cold-nuclear matter", which avoids the hyphenation. We now use "mid-rapidity" throughout the paper. 3) For all references, remove the 'arxiv' information if the paper has been published. Answer: We saw that published papers in PLB do include the arxiv information in their list of references. For the moment, we prefer to keep it there since not all papers are freely available online, but arxiv manuscripts are. We will leave the final word to the journal, if the editors ask us to remove it, then we will do so. 4) Ref. [33] is not cited in the text. For CMS, the latest paper could be added, PRL 109, 222301 (2012). Answer: Ref [33] was removed. Added the Ref. to the latest CMS paper on Upsilon suppression. 5) For the model comparisons, you may also compare with another QGP suppression model, Y. Liu, et al., PLB 697, 32-36 (2011) Answer: This model is now included in the draft too, and plotted for comparison to our data in Fig. 5c. 6) page 3, line 15, you may add a reference to lattice calculations for Tc ~ 175 MeV. Answer: Added a reference to hep-lat/0305025. 7) Fig 1a, \sqrt{s_{NN}} -> \sqrt{s}. In the caption, |y| -> |y_{ee}| Answer: Fixed. 8) For the dAu rapidity, the directions of Au-going and p-going should be explicitly defined. Answer: We also realized that this was important to do. This is now done by adding the sentence: "Throughout this paper, the positive rapidity region is the deuteron-going direction, and the negative rapidity region is the Au-going direction. " 9) Fig.2a, the label of x-axis, 'y_{ee}' -> 'y_{\Upsilon}'. In the caption for Fig. 2a, Ref. [21] should be cited after 'EPS09 nPDF'. Answer: We moved the citation to the first part of the caption. 10) page 5, around line 28-29, please mention explicitly this result is for p+p 200 GeV. Answer: Done. The text now reads "we calculate a production cross section in p+p collisions..." 11) page 7, line 33, add space after N_{part} Answer: Fixed. 12) page 7, line 36, Fig. 5c -> Figure 5c Answer: Done. 13) page 7, line 46, remove 'bin from' Answer: Done. 14) page 7, line 55, 'the latter' -> 'the former' ? Answer: Split the sentence into two, and explicitly stated "The level of suppression we observe for |y|<0.5 stays approximately constant from dAu up to central AuAu collisions. " to make it clear. 15) Fig. 4 a, b, and c, '30%-60%' -> 30-60%, '10%-30%' -> '10-30%', '0%-10%' -> '0-10%' In the caption, |y| -> |y_{ee}| Answer: Fixed. 16) Fig. 5, the label of the y axis better to be the same style as Fig. 2 Answer: Fixed. 17) Page 9, line 33, line 45, when quoting the RdAu and RAA, why omit the p+p stat. errors? Also the p+p syst. err. in line 34 is not the same as that in page 7, line 41, please check. Answer: The p+p stat. errors are combined together with the Au+Au stat. errors because it is straightforward to combine stat. errors, and we just quote the combined stat. error. Syst errors are fixed. ## Comments from UCLA 1. In the legends of Fig 1 and Fig 4, the line color for the like-sign and unlike-sign should be blue and red, instead of black. Answer: Fixed. 2. On page 5, line 29, it is not specified whether this is for p+p or dAu. Answer: Done. The text now reads "we calculate a production cross section in p+p collisions..." 3. The directions of the d and Au beams were not defined: which goes forward and which backward in y? It will be good to specifiy the direction, and briefly discuss the different physics we expect from the forward and backward regions. Answer: We also realized that this was important to do. This is now done by adding the sentence: "Throughout this paper, the positive rapidity region is the deuteron-going direction, and the negative rapidity region is the Au-going direction. " 4. Page 7, line 50, "Pb+Pb" should be upright. Answer: Done. 5. Page 7, line 55-56, "the latter" should be the model, which doesn't look constant. It seems you are talking about the measurements. Then it should be "the former". Answer: Split the sentence into two, and explicitly stated "The level of suppression we observe for |y|<0.5 stays approximately constant from dAu up to central AuAu collisions. " to make it clear. 6. Page 8, line 13-14, "in d+Au to be$2\sigma$from unity and consistent with unity in peripheral" -> "to be$2\sigmafrom unity in d+Au and consistent with unity in peripheral" Answer: Done. 7. Page 8, line 22, "modeling" Answer: There are two aims: to incorporate... and to model ... Since we use the infinitive form in the description of the first aim ("to incorporate") we also use the infinitive form ("to model") in the second aim. 8. Page 3, line 82, "pQCD" -> "perturbative QCD (pQCD)" 9. Page 5, line 6, "perturbative QCD" -> "pQCD" Answer: Both are now fixed. 10. Page 5, Fig 2, the caption says "Results obtained by PHENIX are shown as filled triangles", but they are "diamonds", not triangles in figure. Answer: Fixed. 11. Pg 4 Line 1 : Barrel Electro-Magnetic Calorimeter (EMC) - Barrel Electro-Magnetic Calorimeter (BEMC) and replace EMC with BEMC throughout. Answer: Done. 12. Pg 4 Line 65 : |y_{\upsilon}| - |y|. In the following Figure 1, its |y_{ee}| < 0.5 in figure panels and |y| < 0.5 in caption. Inconsistency, if all of them are same. Answer: Fixed. 13. Pg 5 Line 1 : The data are fit .. - The data are fitted .. Answer: Both forms are grammatically correct. The past participle can be either "fit" or "fitted". http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fit#Verb We kept the text as is. 14. Pg 5 Line 6 : via a perturbative (pQCD) next to leading order (NLO) - via a next to leading order (NLO) pQCD Answer: Done. 15. Pg 5 Line 41 : ... with respect to ... - ... with respect to the ... Answer: It is correct as written, usage: with respect to (something). One could also use "with respect to the" but then we would need to add another noun, for example as in, "with respect to the binary-collision-scaling expectation". We felt the original form was ok. 16. Pg 5 Line 46 : ... yield ... - ... yields ... Answer: Done. 17. Pg 6 Line 25 : The present data ... - The present data in which figure ? Answer: It is now made clear in the text that this refers to Figure 2b. 18. Pg 6 Caption for Fig. 3 : Use a) and b) instead of top and bottom Answer: Done. 19. Pg 6 Caption for Fig. 3 : x_{F} in caption and X_{F} in figure Answer: Fixed. 20. Pg 8 Line 26 : when CNM first appears, it needs to be spelled out. Answer: Done, it is now given in the Introduction. 21. Pg 9 Line 28 & 31 : The term B_{ee} \times is missing in front of d\sigma/dy Answer: Done. ## Comments from Creighton Page 3, Line 71. Why only p+p and d+Au? Why is the Au+Au cross-section not extracted? Answer: We typically extract the yield per event in AA. This can be transformed into a cross section if we use the integrated luminosity. To get from a total number of minimum-bias events to an integrated luminosity all that is needed is the hadronic cross section for AuAu collisions, which is typically obtained using a Glauber model. We typically don't quote it mainly because what the community wants to know is R_AA itself. That is the quantity that the theorists typically calculate, and so we had received guidance to not include a cross section. (It was actually included in earlier versions of the draft.) Given this call for including it, we have now brought it back to the draft. Figure 2. It might be more appropriate to include the description of the symbols in the figure caption rather than in the text. The legend might be reformatted so the description of symbols has the same structure for STAR, PHENIX, and Ramona Vogt. Why not use a consistent label for what we understand to be the same quantity expressed on the horizontal axis? (Figure 2a uses the rapidity for e+e- while Figure 2b uses rapidity for the upsilon.) Answer: The caption now describes the symbols too. We left the description in the text also, to help the reader. Page 5, Line 4. The wording in the text makes it sound like the red line in Figure 2 could refer exclusively to the upsilon production. Answer: We have reworded this part to: "The data are fit with a parameterization consisting of the sum of various contributions to the electron-pair invariant-mass spectrum. The lines in Fig. 1 show the yield from the combinatorial background (dashed blue line), the result of adding the physics background from Drell-Yan and \bbbar\ pairs (dot-dashed green line), and finally the inclusion of the \upsi\ contribution (solid red line)." Page 6, Line 18. It might be more appropriate to discuss here why the mid-rapidity point is lower than the prediction (rather than later in the text). Answer: In a sense, the next paragraphs and figures are meant to discuss this point being low. We use R_dAu to have more discussion of the model predictions (and show their uncertainties). We next compare our result to previous measurements, which show a similar suppression. We added the sentence "To study this observation for \dAu\ further, we make a closer comparison to models and to previous measurements of \upsi\ production in p+A collisions. " to highlight this. Page 7, Line 11/Figure 3b. It is unclear how the plot in terms of Feynman-x improves the comparison of rapidity coverage. Answer: We added the x_F plot because the E772 data were given in x_F. We can massage our data to get x_F from rapidity making some estimates about the pT, which we can do because we have all the information on the Upsilon 4-momenta for our data, but we do not have this information for E772. So in order to compare to their result, it was best to not touch their data and massage ours, with intimate knowledge of ours, than to keep everything in y_Upsilon but having to massage their data without knowledge of their pT distribution so that we would only be guessing as to the correct y_Upsilon that would correspond to a particular x_F range. Page 9, Line 30. This result in the conclusions does not seem to have been presented in the body of the paper. Answer: This result is now given in the same paragraph where the corresponding pp cross section is first stated, right after the description of Figure 1. ## Comments from WUT Reader 1: 1. legend of Fig. 1b -------------------- I would rather put R_{dA}=1 (not R_{AA}) to be consistent with the figure caption and the main text Answer: Fixed. 2. Fig 2a and discussion in the text of the results for pp at positive and negative rapidities. ---------------------------------------------------------- I found it a bit awkward that we are presenting results just after folding in data at positive and negative y. Of course the physics for pp is symmetric wrt y=0, but it would be better to present separately results for -1 < y < -0.5 and 0.5 < y < 1.0 to show that indeed the results are consistent. (Also as a cross check of correctness of including all experimental corrections, and nothing to hide) Answer: We did check that the results were consistent for pp, but we wanted to maximize the statistical power of the data, given that we are still somewhat statistics limited. Note that the acceptance and efficiency is lower for the 0.5 < |y|< 1.0 region, so that is why we wanted to add the two in pp, thanks to the symmetry, to show our best results. For the d+Au case, as we say in the paper, we did leave the analysis in distinct rapidity regions because the system is not symmetric. 3. legend of Fig. 2a -------------------- For STAR and PHENIX points it would be more transparent, if the legend would have similar layout as for NLO pQCD CEM. I.e. 'STAR' in a single line followed by two lines 'pp' and 'dAu/1000' and analogously for PHENIX/ Answer: Fixed. 4. line 2 on page 7 ------------------ "their deuterium result" => "their pd result" would be more straightward statement (I assume E772 had a liquid deuterium target to study pd collisions) Answer: Done. And yes, we say in the text that they had a liquid deuterium target. 5. Fig. 4 --------- The curves for combinatorial background should be made smooth like for all other curves, not going in steps. Answer: Fixed. Reader 2: page 4, line 1 and in further occurences: shouldn't it be BEMC instead of EMC ? -------------------- Answer: Done. page 5, line 1: shouldn't it be "The data are fitted" --------------------------------------- Answer: Both forms are grammatically correct. The past participle can be either "fit" or "fitted". http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fit#Verb We kept the text as is. Reader 3: Overall it is a very well written paper and important results. 1. Acronyms in the introduction should be defined there (RHIC, LHC, pQCD or even QCD) -------------------- Answer: Done. p. 3, l. 60: you use "cold-nuclear-matter effects" without defining what "cold" and "hot" nuclear matter is. It would be good to introduce these terms when you talk about QGP and then other possible sources of suppression (line 52-63) -------------------- Answer: Added short phrases to better define these terms. p.8 l.26 - CNM should be defined -------------------- Answer: It is now defined in the Introduction. p.8 l.44-48 - it is not clear from the text how exactly CNM and QGP effects were combined for the scenario 4. -------------------- Answer: We now state "For scenario 4), the expected suppression is simply taken to be the product of the suppression from scenario 2) and scenario 3)." p.9 l.29 "with NLO" -> with "pQCD NLO" -------------------- Answer: In the rest of the paper, we have used NLO pQCD, so at this point, it should be clear that when we are talking about a Next-to-Leading Order calculation, we are implicitly talking about a perturbative QCD calculation (the fact that we are talking about "orders" in a calculation implies that we are talking about perturbation theory, and this entire paper deals with QCD), so it should be clear from the context. Figures: Caption of Fig 2: " from EPS09 with shadowing" - "EPS09" is nPDF which includes shadowing already, maybe write "due to shadowing using EPS09"? -------------------- Answer: Changed the caption so it reads: "The dAu prediction uses the EPS09 nPDF which includes shadowing" Fig 2 and Fig 6 - the contrast of the figures could be improved - for instance lines for models in Fig. 2 are barely visible when printed in black and white Answer: Fixed. Reader 4: Fig. 1 and Fig 4 - The information on pT range, in which the signal is presented, can be added. ------------------------------------- Answer: We added a sentence at the end of the "Experimental Methods" section to state: "For all results we quote, the Upsilon data are integrated over all transverse momenta." ## Comments from BNL The new p+p result is significant, why is it not in title? Answer: We already have one paper that is all about the pp cross section. Our result in this paper is an improvement, but the new results on suppression are the highlight of the paper, and we felt they deserved to be emphasized in the title. If we change the title to something like "Upsilon production in pp, d+Au, and Au+Au collisions at sqrt(s_NN) = 200 GeV" would include the pp result in the title, but it will not mention suppression. We prefer to emphasize the suppression, as that is the new, important result. Since we are attempting to publish in Physics Letters B, we felt it was more appropriate. The paper is not clear in many places, and would be helped from a re-­write keeping the audience in mind, i.e. not nesc. an expert in HI. It was commented that in particular the introduction on page 2 line 56 to 66 has much expert knowledge assumed, but does cover the field. Some examples are given below in the individual comments. Answer: We tried to make the introduction section a short review of the field so that a non-expert could follow. We don't understand which expert knowledge is assumed in the introduction in lines 56-66. We certainly have strived to make the paper clear, and we will look for the specific comments and suggestions below. The different RAA values appears multiple places in text. We think it is important to present these in tabular form, particular since so many numbers are presented RAA |y| <0.5, 1 centrality and collision system. Noted by several readers. Page 7,30-­‐50 Page 8, 4-­‐20 Answer: A table with all the values has now been added to the paper. The definition of RAA seems a bit colloquial, normally this is defined vs. e.g pt, but in the case of the Upsilon it is our understanding this is an integral of the cross section over all (or some) pt-­‐range divided by the pp . The paper should define this clearly. Answer: We specifically wrote in the paper the equation used for R_AA. This is as clear a definition as we can make. We also now specify that our measurements are integrated over all pt. The abstract should reflect the conclusion of the paper, this does not at present. Answer: The abstract includes the most central R_AA and the R_dAu values, which are some of the most important results of the paper. We also state three of the most important conclusions we draw from the data: Our results are consistent with complete suppression of excited-state Υ mesons in Au+Au collisions. The additional suppression in Au+Au is consistent with the level expected in model calculations that include the presence of a hot, deconfined Quark-Gluon Plasma. However, understanding the effects seen in d+Au is still needed before fully interpreting the Au+Au results. The most important observation, which is the unexpected observation that R_dAu is the same as R_AA for central events in the |y|<0.5 region, is the reason why we wrote the last sentence in the abstract. The paper needs clarification in regard to the material budgets for the 3 running periods. The text alludes to differences, e.g. how its included in the fits. Why not summarize the rad lengths for pp, dAu and AuAu to be precise. If not, it is very hard to follow the different figures, and clearly different response functions for the Upsilon peaks. Answer: This is now fixed. The sentence in question alluded to differences in the material budget, but for the three years there were no differences in the material budget. Only the differences in the detector occupancy and the detector calibrations affect the width. In the new version, we also mention explicitly that the 3 running periods have the same material budget. Page 6 Please define XF, how you used XF. It was not found in the analysis note, and we have problems to understand how we can reach XF~0.4 when measuring at mid-­‐ rapidity Xf= pz/pzmax normally, so are we seeing Upsilons with Pz=40 Gev in y<1? In any case its not defined. Answer: Good catch! We made a mistake in the calculation for STAR, we accidentaly used the E772 value for the beam momentum. We were originally thinking of transforming their values of x_F to rapidity, but then when we decided not to move their data and change ours to x_F, we did not use our value for the beam momentum. The figure is updated. But the most important point which is at y=0 remains at x_F=0, so the comparison to the level of suppression seen by STAR and E772 at x_F=0 stays the same. On page 8 line 7 it say RAA = 0.44+-­‐… where as figure 5 c clear as R > 0.5. Please clarify. Answer: It should be 0.54, it was a typo, and is now fixed. The discussion between the |y|<1 and |y|<0.5 is not clear cut, particular for the AuAu; It is surprising to have such difference. Is it possible this reflects un-­accounted systematic error or is it all statistical? It does take away from the final conclusions since for |y|<0.5 there is no suppression relative to dAu where as there is for |y|<1. This clearly translates into the interpretation of the interesting model comparisons presented in fig 6. Conclusions in the text are iffy. The data in fig 5 as given do NOT indicate any (significant) centrality dependence vs. Npart , only for RAA(1S). Is that the message that should come across? Answer: We have discussed the differences in the |y|<1 and |y|<0.5 in the PWG, precisely to try to make sure that the results we are observing in |y|<1 and in |y|<0.5 are statistically consistent. One of the results is a subset of the other, so one must be careful to take into account the correlations. This study is in the technical note, in section 6A (page 33). We concluded that the results are self consistent. As to whether the result is statistical fluctuation, this is a possibility, but that is the case for any result, and the only way to remedy that situation is to run more dAu. As to whether it could be a systematic effect, we have done the analysis in |y|<0.5, in |y|<1, and in 0.5<|y|<1 where for each we use the same methods for extracting the signal, for applying efficiency and acceptance corrections, for estimating the backgrounds, etc. So if there is a systematic effect, it would affect the |y|<0.5 and the 0.5<|y|<1 region in the same way, and therefore it would not lead to differences between these two regions. We do not think that this "takes away" from the final conclusions, because it is an observation that is not expected if there should be binary scaling in dAu, and it makes the result more interesting. The reason why we included the E772 data was precisely because we observed such a striking suppression in dAu. So indeed, the fact that the data in Fig. 5b do not show a significant centrality dependence vs. Npart is one of the most important observations of the paper. And with the E772 data, we can point to a previous result that shows a similar level of suppression in pA. Therefore, this paper will serve to exhort the community to take a closer look at Upsilon suppression in pA or dA. We do not understand the comment about conclusions being "iffy". If there is a specific conclusion that does not seem to be supported by the data, then we can address that. The last sentence in conclusion seem exaggerated, and not documented from text just remove. Answer: One of the main points of the paper is that in Fig. 5b, as we explain in the previous answer, there is no evidence for a significant centrality dependence of Upsilon suppression in dAu. The models predict the level of suppression we see in AuAu, but one of the key results of the paper is the suppression seen in dAu. The GPC strongly advocated to include a sentence in the conclusions of the paper that cautions readers that one must understand the dAu suppression before any strong claims can be made. The last sentence was rephrased slighly to better reflect this. In abstract suggest the remove the sentence “Our measurements p+p…” and add to the text where relevant in the introduction. Not really relevant. Answer: Done. Individual comments: Page 3 line 34: it is not at all obvious how the 2 statements (deconfinement and high temperature phase of lattice QCD where color is an active degree of freedom) in this sentence are scientifically connected. Answer: The connection is that color Debye screening, which is the original effect proposed by Matsui and Satz, requires a quark-gluon plasma where the color charges of the high-temperature plasma screen the heavy-quark potential that binds the bottomonium (or charmonium) states. This is one of the key ideas in QGP physics. Page 3 line 59 for a non HI guru this argumentation is basically impossible to follow. Also ccbar and bbar pairs are produced the same way through gg fusion so why should there be a difference. Answer: It seems that the question arises because the inquirer did not follow that the arguments presented are about final state effects, since the comment about ccbar and b-bbar pairs being produced through gluon fusion is about their production in the inital state, not about the possible ways that they can be broken up in the final state. The comment about the interaction cross section of the Upsilon with hadrons applies to the final state, once the hadrons are produced. The size of the upsilon meson is much smaller than the J/psi meson, and the corresponding cross section of an Upsilon to interact with a final state pion (and then break up into a pair of B mesons) is much smaller than the cross section for a J/psi to be broken up by a pion into a pair of D mesons. We will add a comment that the effects discussed in this section are final state effects. Page 3 line 46. There is no reference to statistical recombination. Answer: Added a reference to Thews et al. Page 3 line 78 there is no issues using the 2008 dAu data even so other analysis claim they cannot publish because of the non perfect tpc alignment? Answer: We put a lot of work to take into account the effect of the TPC misalignment. This is discussed in the Technical Note in Section V.F, page 29. In particular, the 2009 pp data was originally processed with the same misalignment that the 2008 dAu data and the 2010 AuAu data both have. The 2009 pp data was subsequently reprocessed with fixed calibrations, and we studied the effect that the distortions had on our invariant mass reconstruction on an event-by-event basis, i.e. comparing the mass obtained in the production with the misalignment and then with the misalignment fixed on the exact same event. This allowed us to characterize the effect of the misalignment and to take it into account in embedding for the line-shapes and then in the extraction of the Upsilon yield via the fits using those line-shapes. This was studied extensively in the PWG in large part because we wanted to make sure that any issues regarding the misalignment would be dealt with appropriately. We cannot comment on other analyses, but if they can also study the differences in the two pp 2009 productions, that could help them to account for the TPC misalignment in their own analyses. Fig 1 caption – comment to fit: the chi^2 of the pp fit must be horrible, any reason why the fit does not describe the data better. Answer: The chi^2/NDF is 1.37 in the pp fit. This is not something we would characterize as "horrible". Given the statistics, there is not a strong reason to change the fit from using components we expect to have, namely the Upsilon states, the Drell-Yan and b-bbar continuum, and the combinatorial background. 2nd question: was the setup of STAR, especially the material budget, the same? If not, which I assume, how different are they? Answer: The material budget was the same. The TPC misalignment in dAu, and AuAu increases the width compared to pp. The higher occupancy in AuAu also contributes to a broadening compared to pp. As noted above, we now explicitly state in the paper that the material budget in all three datasets is the same. page 5 line 6 (fig caption) ‘band’ -> box/square Answer: The NLO calculations are shown as a band, and that is what is mentioned in the caption. page 6 line 48: the effect at mid rapidity taking the systematic uncertainty into account is 2 sigma max. I think this is a number which needs to be stated. Answer: We state the value of R_dAu with statistic and systematic uncertainties. We will also provide a table with all the R_AA and R_dAu values. The sentence we use in page 6 line 48 says that the suppresion is "indicative" of effects beyond shadowing, initial-state parton energy loss, or absorption by spectator nucleons. Using "indicative" is usually warranted for effects that are of ~2 to 3 sigma significance, we certainly not claim a "discovery" (5sigma). Itʼs a bit hard to follow the various R_AA and R_dAu quoted in the paper. A table listing the R_{AB} for the various combinations might be more useful than scattering the values through the text. Answer: A table is now provided. Abstract: I realize that in the abstract you donʼt want to get too technical, but omitting the rapidity range and whether it is 1S or 1S+2S+3S makes the numbers not useful. Answer: We added a short clarification in the abstract as to the result quoted being 1S+2S+3S, and in the rapidity range |y|<1. p. 4: Lines 55-57: the tracking and electron identification efficiencies would be the same across the three datasets, but in the previous paragraph there was discussion about differences in efficiency. Needs to be made clearer. Answer: The text is now clear that the main thing that was chosen to be the same was the electron identification efficiency. Fig1 The N_{--} is unclear the – runs together with the N Answer: Fixed Fig. 2: Vogt band does not print well. Answer: Increased the line weights and changed the colors to darken them so that they print better. fig 2a needs ""Phenix"" in dAu/1000 (open diamonds) Answer: Fixed Fig 2: “are shown as triangles There are no triangles, Answer: Done. It should be diamonds. c) Fig 3a The label A^0.96 is not the actual black curve which is (A/2)^{-0.04) according" "to the text in pg 7. Maybe writting the A^{alpha} scaling of cross section in the figure may help. Answer: Fixed in Fig 4 where the CB in all three panels is not a smooth curve nor a histogram; it has an unusual "mexican pyramid" shape Answer: What's wrong with Mexican pyramids? :-) The plot will now be a smooth curve. The A to the 0.96 does not match the text in line 5 page 7 Answer: As noted above, the Figure will now display A^0.96 scaling to make clear that the line shown is not A^0.9, but rather derived from a cross section that scales as A^0.96. Fig. 5: Are the shaded boxes systematics in the AB system? If so, needs to be in the caption. Answer: Fixed Fig. 6: "Our data is shown as a red vertical line with systematics shown by the pink box. There are two systematics (pp and AB). What was done with these? The pp is common to d+Au and Au+Au, so not clear, actually, what should be done. Answer: The two systematics were added in quadrature for Fig. 6, we now state that in the paper. (Agree that it is debatable how to best combine them, but we should state what was done.) .p. 6, lines 43-44: Do you mean y<~-1.2, rather than 1.2? Otherwise the argument doesnʼt make sense. And, where is the 1.2 from (citation)? Answer: Correct, it should be -1.2. We do give the reference (23) for this statement in the previous sentence. p. 8, line 11: consistent with an RAA(2S+3S) approximately equal to zero. Would be better to quantify this as an upper limit. Answer: This section was reworded based on suggestions from another reader. The argument now starts with the hypothesis of an approximately zero yield of the 2S+3S, states what that would imply for the R_AA(1S) and R_AA(1S+2S+3S) values, and then notes that this is consistent with our data. p. 9, line 1: at how many sigma was the exclusion? At 4.2 sigma, as quoted later? Answer: The exclusion the "no-suppression" scenario had a p-value of less than 1 in 10^7 (better than 5 sigma) for all R_AA cases in AuAu. The R_dAu had a different p-value of 1.8 * 10^-5 (~4.2 sigma). Line 18: result rather than effect reads better. Answer: Done. How were systematics taken into account in the quoting of “sigma”?" Answer: The only time we quote "sigma" are for the exclusion of the "no-suppression" scenarios. For R_AA, they would still be excluded at better than ~5 sigma even including systematics. For the dAu case, if the p-value is calculated with the systematic uncertainty shift we get 1.5 x 10^-3, which is about 3sigma. a) The style of the paper is too colloquial for my taste, but I'm told that journals have relaxed their style requirements. Answer: This is a style issue, we are certainly willing to discuss this with the editors of the journal if need be. d) Reference [10] explains that the Combinatorial background is obtained by fitting the same charge sign pair distribution and that appears to be the case in this paper except in Fig 4 where the CB in all three panels is not a smooth curve nor a histogram; it has an unusual ""mexican pyramid"" shape. Answer: The plots will all have a smooth curve. Page 7 top (line)9 From the figs its not obvious there is 4.2 deviation, more like 3, can you cross check. Answer: See previous comments on the deviations and statistical significance. Clearly the difference between y 0.5 and 1.0 make the conclusion a bit waffly. Answer: For dAu, in both scenarios we are excluding the no-suppression scenario. Both datasets are supporting this conclusion. Furthermore, the comment we make in about a 4.2sigma exclusion of the no-suppression scenario comes from the |y|<1 measurement, which is the weaker exclusion of the two. The |y|<0.5 only serves to make this conclusion stronger. The notation and fonts for RAA and Upsilon(1S+2S+3s) not not consistent across paper. Answer: plots are now consistent (For Anthony). Page 8 line 48 “ assumed a flat prior..” This reference to statistics may or may not come across well to the general reader, Possible expand on this. Answer: We have followed other papers in the Physics Letters B which use these same statistical techniques, and this usage was accepted. One minor comment:" "In Fig.6, “CMN effects” should be “CNM effects” Answer: Fixed. Page 4 line 28&57, the three datasets” clarify to indicate “between the datasets from the three collisions systems”" Answer: Done. "line 57" "‘be the same” Really, should it not be “approximately the same". Answer: Done. # Responses to GPC, April 2014 Thomas: 1. General: with the new text (in red) there's no a wild mix of Au in roman and italic in normal text and in super/sub-scripts. Since Au is a chemical symbol I would put it all in roman consistently. I fixed the remaining instances of italicized "Au"s in the text. 2. Page 3, line 30, Sentence starting "Additionally ...". This sentence doesn't say a lot and as I already mentioned that I do not think the feed-down pattern is any more complex than that in the charmomium sector. I attached a schematic diagram. Replace Y with Psi and chi_b with chi_c and h_b with h_c and that's it. Why not simply saying here that the amount of feed-down into the Y(states) is not measured at RHIC energies and then give numbers of the next closest energy (which is Tevatron I guess). We've changed the discussion of feed down in the introduction. We added a reference to the Tevatron results. We also discussed the direct fraction and its implication for the interpretation of the 1S results. 3. Fig 1,: I already mentioned that I suggest to turn this into a table. The plot doesn't really provide any new insight. Done. 4. Page 9, line 13. "*" -> "\times" or just leave it out Changed to \times. It helps distinguish the (1S) as an argument and the next set of parens as a mathematical expression. 5. Page 11, Line 18. I wonder if one should add one sentence mentioning the Y suppression in high multiplicity pp events seen by CMS. Fits in the context. I would argue it's a little ambiguous whether we should do this. If we were citing LHC results, I think this would be prudent. However, we have yet to see evidence of Upsilon suppression (or J/Psi suppression) in pp collisions at RHIC energies. 6. Page 11, line 50. Delete "However". Done. 7. Fig. 6. The font size of the legend is a bit on the small side. There's enough room to make it a tic bigger. I've tried to squeeze a larger font in there. Thoughts? 8. Table II. Can we really say that d-Au is 0-100%? That would be zero bias. Wasn't there a min-bias mixed with the Y trigger. To my knowledge we never quoted anything above 80/90%. What about simply saying min. bias instead of 0-100%. Done. Lanny: P3 L30 -- remove "complex" (it is an unnecessary adjective here) OK P4 (new) Fig.1 and red text lines 50-51, 65-69: The efficiencies are about the same for the 30-60, 10-30 and 0-60 at each rapidity bin. This information probably should be in the text since HF reco. eff. are useful to know by others in the business. I recommend putting this information in the text in place of the above Figure 1 and lines, e.g. "The\Upsilon$acceptance$\times\$ efficiency for three centrality
bins (30-60%, 10-30%, 0-60%) are XX, XX and XX for respective
rapidity bins |y|<0.5, |y|<1.0 and 0.5<|y|<1.0. For the 0-10% centrality
the corresponding total efficiencies are reduced by approximately XX%."

Please check that the various uses of "total efficiency", "reconstruction
efficiency", "acceptance times efficiency" etc are used consistently and
avoid extra such terms if possible.

P5 Fig2b -- The legend "p+p x <Ncoll>" is misleading and may be what ref.2
is asking about. The grey band in 2b is not simply the red curve in 2a
multiplied by a constant (Ncoll).  There are resolution effects as discussed
on P6. The caption should say, "The grey band shows the expected yield if
RDAu = 1 including resolution effects (see text)."

P5 L8 -- Are b-bbar pair backgrounds NPE from open HF meson
decays (B-mesons)?  Just curious.

You got it.

P5 Tabel I -- I assume momentum resolution effects are included in
the line shape entries.  Ref.1 is concerned about p-resolution and in
addition to the response, this table caption should note that p-resol.
is included in the line shape errors if that is true.

It is included and is now noted in the caption.

P5 L17-28 -- I did not find any discussion in the paper about the
use of max likelihood fitting. This turned out to be a big deal and
will be discussed in the response. This parag. would be the place
to say, briefly how the fits were done.

Good idea. The following was added: "The fit is permormed simultaneously to the like-sign and unlike-sign spectra using a maximum-likelihood method."

P6 L6 -- "miscalibration" sounds scary. Can this issue be explained
in the text, and more so in the responses, so that neither referee nor
the readers are put-off by the statement and dismiss the paper's results?

We now refer to it as a misalignment as well as quantifying the effect it had on the line shape.

P6 L26 -- I recommend against arguing with the referee over simple
wording changes that have equivalent meanings.  Is there a subtlety
here that I don't recognize?

We changed the wording and Manuel played diplomat. I never intended this to be the real response; it was more for the GPC. It's now fixed.

P6 Fig.3a -- The referee is asking that the legend "Upsilon -> e+e-"
say explicitly "Upsilon(1S+2S+3S) -> e+e-".  But also change to l+l-.
She/he wants the states listed explicitly.

Done.

P8 Fig 5c caption - same issue as above with the grey band. The
last sentence in the caption should read: "The grey band ... number
of binary collisions including resolution effects (see text)."

Done.

P9 L8 -- Referring to Fig. 6c, the 10-30% RAA is consistent with unity
also. This sentence should say, "..consistent with unity in peripheral
to more-central Au+Au collisions..."  BTW, "events" is jargon which we
all use, but I think it is better to say "collisions" here and throughout
the paper unless we are specifically discussing a triggered event in
DAQ.

Fair enough. I've updated the text to reflect that the RAA in 10-30% is consistent with unity as well.

Also, I changed event to collision where approriate in the text. Those changes are unhighlighted.

P10 L8 -- "With two possibilities.." implies that CNM and QGP are

the only possibilities for reducing yields.  There is at least the
possibility of modified fragmentation of HF quarks in a
dense system.  I recommend saying "Considering two possible
sources..."  which more accurately reflects what was done; we
considered these two effects and not others.

Good point! We fixed it. Thanks.

P10 L37-39 -- Isn't the "QGP only" preferred in Fig. 8b? Why
mention the other as "consistent" and not also mention the

one that fits best?

One thing to note here is that the "QGP only" model also includes the "no suppression" model in dAu. Seeing as no suppression is disfavored by the dAu study, we can argue that "QGP only" is not really favored. We made this more clear in the text.

Thorsten:

- p3, l31-l32: I don't like the formulation too much, maybe "...there exists a feed-down pattern in the bottomonium sector, and thus melting of the higher states affects also the measured yield of the lower states."

We've changed this section. See responses to Thomas' comments for further info.

- fig 1 take a lot of space for basically not much information, maybe a table would be sufficient?
Done

- p6, l6: TPC miscalibration sounds scary, maybe non-perfect TPC calibration?

We now refer to it as a misalignment as well as quantifying the effect it had on the line shape.

- p11, l5: I'm not too happy with the A^alpha discussion: after all it is a just a fit to the data. Have you used for this statement the alpha value from our own measurement, e.g. fig 4 bottom or the integrated one from fig 4 top? The integrated one is significantly above the midrapidity one, also for E772
Fair point. We discussed what we need to in the previous paragraph and we've removed this sentence.

# Responses to PLB Referees

We would like to thank the referees for the insightful and constructive comments. We discuss below our detailed replies to your questions and the corresponding explanation of changes to the manuscript. But before we go into the replies to the comments, we want to make the referees aware of changes to the results that were prompted via our studies of the systematic effects on the yield extraction.  Since this paper deals with cross sections and with nuclear-modification factors, both of which involve obtaining the yields of the Upsilon states, this change affects all the results in the paper. We therefore wanted to discuss this change first. Please note that the magnitude of these effects do not change the overall message of the paper.

We wanted to alert the referees up-front about this important change before we proceeded into the detailed responses.  This study was indirectly prompted by one of the questions from Referee 2 regarding systematic effects from yield extraction.

In the process of investigating the systematic difference between extracting the upsilon yield through simultaneous fitting compared to background subtraction as requested by the referee, we also studied the effects of chi^2 fits (specifically of Modified Least-Squares fits) compared to maximum-likelihood fits. We used chi^2 fits in our original submission. We were aware that extracting yields using a chi^2 fit introduces a bias (e.g see Glen Cowan's "Statistical Data Analysis", Sec. 7.4). The size of the bias is proportional to the value of the chi^2 of the fit.  In the case of the Modified Least-squares fit, when fitting a histogram including the total yield as a fit parameter, the yield will on average be lower than the true yield by an amount equal to chi^2.  The relative bias, i.e. the size of the bias divided by the extracted yield, goes to zero in the large yield limit, which is why for cases with large statistics this effect can be negligible.  We had attempted to mitigate the effects of this bias by using the integral of the data, since this removes the bias completely in the signal-only case.  But a bias remains in the case where there are both signal and background present. For our case, the yield extracted from the fit for the background is also biased toward lower values, and since we used this background estimate to subtract from the integral of the data in the extraction of the Upsilon yields, these biased the Upsilon yields towards higher values.   Through simulation studies, where we include signal and 3 background components as in our analysis, we were able to quantify these effects. Given that in some cases the biases could be of order 10-20%, the fits needed to be redone in order to remove the bias. The solution is straightforward since the extraction of yields using a maximum-likelihood fit is unbiased.  We have studied the difference of a modified-least squares fit and a maximum-likelihood fit and confirmed that the yield extraction in the latter method is essentially unbiased. We therefore have redone all the fits to extract the Upsilon yields via maximum-likelihood fits. The revised results are now quoted in the paper. The overall message of the paper is not affected by these changes.

We proceed next to answer the specific points raised by the reviewers.

Reviewer #1: This paper reports results on Y production in pp, dAu, and AuAu
collisions at top RHIC energy. It contains original and important
results and clearly qualifies for publication in PLB. However, there
are many aspects of the paper which need attention and/or improvement
prior to publication. They are detailed below:

1. the introduction is carelessly written. For example, the value
quoted for the pseudo-critical temperature near mu = 0 of 173 MeV is
taken from an old publication in 2003. Recent lattice results from the
Wuppertal-Budapest group (PoS LATTICE2013 (2013) 155) and the Hot QCD
Collaboration (Phys.Rev. D81 (2010) 054504) imply much lower T values
near 150 MeV and are far superior in terms of lattice sizes and spacing.

There are certainly newer results, which we now cite in the paper. However, we note that the
the results from the Hot QCD collaboration (Phys.Rev. D81 (2010) 054504) do not imply
much lower T values.  In that paper, in section IV "Deconfinement and Chiral aspects of the QCD transition", when discussing the deconfinement transition temperature range the authors write:
"...we have seen that the energy density shows a rapid rise in the temperature interval T = 170200. MeV. This is usually interpreted to be due to deconfinement, i.e., liberation of many new degrees of freedom".
Therefore, this does not indicate T values near 150 MeV. In addition, they also mention this range when discussing their results for the renormalized Polyakov loop, which
is the parameter most closely related to the deconfiment transition, being that it is the exact order parameter in the pure
gauge case:
"The renormalized Polyakov loop rises in the temperature interval T = 170200 MeV where we also see the rapid increase of the energy density."
Therefore, the results from the Hot QCD collaboration do not imply T values near 150 MeV.

In addition, in reference 9 of the Wuppertal-Budapest group (JHEP 1009 (2010) 073 arXv:1005.3508), which is a paper comparing the various results for Tc between the Wuppertal-Budapest and HotQCD groups, again the results for the renormalized Polyakov loop (figure 7, right) indicate a broad transition region in the region T=160-200 MeV.  They do have a table discussing values of Tc of about 147 MeV, but that is for the chiral transition, which is not the most relevant one for quarkonium suppression.
When they look at the trace anomaly (e-3p)/T^4, they see 154 MeV for the Tc value.  They in addtion make the point that the transition is a broad crossover, which is something we also say in our paper.  The fact that the transition is a broad crossover leads to differences in the estimates of the pseudo-critical temperatures depending on which observable is used.  As an example, in the caption of Table 2, where they give the values of Tc for many observables, they mention that the Bielefeld-Brookhaven-Columbia-Riken Collaboration obtained Tc=192. They also note "It is more informative to look at the complete T dependence of observables, than
just at the definition-dependent characteristic poins of them." So given the above, we will modify the paper to give a range of temperatures, 150-190, and cite the papers from the
Wuppertal-Budapest and HotQCD collaborations.

also the discussion on whether charmonium or bottomonium 'is a cleaner
probe..' does not get to any of the real issues, such as the complex
feeding pattern in the Y sector and the crucial question of whether Y
mesons reach equilibrium in the hot fireball as required to interpret
the apparent sequential melting pattern in terms of 'break-up'
temperatures.

The issues we discuss, in our opinion, are real issues.  We discuss co-mover absorption and the interplay between suppression and statistical recombination of uncorrelated charm pairs. These have been a topic of intense interest in the charmonium case for over a decade.  We certainly agree that these are not the only issues, but in this paper we aim to present the result of our measurement, so we cannot give a detailed review of all issues. However, the aim was to point out that for the bottomonium case, the expected contributions to either suppression or enhancement from both of these mechanisms are much smaller, and hence studying Upsilons is cleaner. The reviewer brings up the importaint issue of feed-down that affects the bottomonium as it does the charmonium sector.  We have added a few sentences regarding feed-down.  Regarding bottomonium, the feed-down contributions to the Upsilon states are not measured at RHIC energies yet. It is therefore assumed in the models used by Strickland, Rapp, etc. that the fraction of directly-produced Upsilon(1S) is ~51%, as measured in pp collisions at high pT at Tevatron energy. The original paper motivating the quarkonium sequential suppression by Digal, Petreczky, and Satz discussed feed-down as part of the impetus for looking for suppression of the Upsilon(1S). Given the ~51% direct Upsilon fraction, an R_AA of the Upsilon(1S) as low as ~0.51 would not necessarily imply suppression of the direct 1S, but could be due solely to suppression of the excited states. We have added text about this point in the paper, in discussing the R_AA(1S) result.

The reviewer also mentions that there is a crucial question as to
whether the Upsilon mesons reach equilibrium with the fireball as a requirement to interpret the sequential melting pattern. We respectfully disagree with the referee in this matter. The Upsilon is by definition not in equilibrium. The only requirement of course is that the medium is deconfined. In lattice QCD studies only the medium is thermalized; the potential between the heavy quarks is screened independent of whether the Upsilon is in equilibrium or not. We discussed this issue with lattice expert Peter Petreczky who confirmed our view.

furthermore, statistical recombination is not a 'complication' but a
direct measure of deconfinement. And the smallness of off-diagonal
terms in the recombination matrix does not imply absence of
recombination as the diagonal terms can be substantial.

We agree that statistical recombination is an indication of deconfinement, but from the experimental side, it has made the interpretation of the results more complicated, because one needs to take into account the interplay of suppression and recombination.  Because this effect is negligible for the bottomonium states even at LHC energies, the quantitative interpretation of the experimental results is less complicated. It is in this sense that the word "complication" is meant.

Also the newest results on p-Pb collisions from the LHC are entirely
ignored, see, e.g., arXiv:1308.6726.

We are aware of the quarkonium pPb results from LHC, however there is not a way to make a direct comparison to LHC results, because there are no pPb results on the nuclear modification factor of Upsilons.  The results from ALICE in the reference given above are for the J/psi meson, and they are also for the forward-backward kinematic range.  There are also results from CMS (arXiv:1312.6300) for Upsilon mesons at midrapidity, but these are in the form of ratios of the yield of the excited states to the ground states in a given system (pp, pPb, PbPb), and of double ratios, i.e. excited-to-ground-state ratios in pPb divided by excited-to-ground-state ratios in pp.  These give us relative suppression of the excited states, whereas our results are for absolute suppression, and are therefore not directly comparable. The only quantitative comparison to the CMS data we can make is to estimate a double ratio for the excited states. The double ratio we find is consistent with the result from pPb from CMS, but it is also consistent with 1, i.e. no suppression of the excited states relative to the ground state in pPb compared to pp (We find the double ratio = 0.72 +/- 0.37). We will make a comment about this in the paper, and cite the CMS pPb result.  But the advantage of the results we are presenting is that we have fully corrected nuclear modification factors, which convey more information than relative suppression.

2. section on experimental methods

no detail is given concerning the crucial momentum resolution but it
is stated at the end of this section that cuts were adjusted for
different systems such that 'tracking and electron id would be the
same across the 3 data sets'. On the other hand, already in Fig. 1 we
see a strong dependence of the mass resolution on the system even for
low multiplicities as in pp and p-Pb. The effect must be much stronger
in Pb-Pb as is indeed visible in Fig. 4. Especially in view of the
importance of resolution for the separation of excited Y states this
referee has to be convinced that the systematic errors are under
control for momentum and pid measurements as a function of
multiplicity. Also how the systematic errors for the separation of Y'
and Y'' from Y are determined as a function of multiplicity needs to
be demonstrated explicitely.

We agree that the mass resolution is very important for the results of the paper, and need to be discussed.  We added text to discuss the Upsilon mass resolution, and how it was studied as a function of TPC multiplicity (we focus on mass resolution, but this is directly related to the momentum resolution of the electron tracks used to reconstruct the Upsilon).  We studied the mass resolution using both simulations and data-driven methods.  Regarding the momentum resolution and the difference of the mass width seen in the pp compared to the dAu and AuAu plots, the majority of the difference between the pp lineshape and the dAu/AuAu lineshapes comes from a miscalibration in the TPC which was corrected in the pp dataset via a reproduction of the raw data, but due to time constraints was not corrected in the dAu and AuAu datasets. With the distortion correction, the pp mass resolution is found to be 1.3%.  If there were no distortions in Au+Au, we find in peripheral events a mass resolution for the Upsilon(1S) of 1.7%, which widens to 2.0% for central events, based on simulations. In order to ensure that we had this resolution effect under quantitative control, in addition to studying it via embedding simulated tracks into real collision events, we also studied the difference in the reconstructed mass of every reconstructed di-electron pair between the corrected and uncorrected pp datasets on an event-by-event basis. We were able to determine the additional mass smearing introduced by this TPC distortion, and this data-driven knowledge was used in the determination of the line shapes in dAu and in Au+Au.  The additional smearing introduced by the TPC distortion resulted in a mass resolution for the Upsilon(1S) of 2.7%, widening to 2.9% for central events.  For d+Au, the mass resolution is also found to be 2.7%, consistent with the peripheral events in AuAu. Finally, given the importance of the resolution for the separation of the states, we also used one additional data-driven method to check the resolution. We used the data from Au+Au and performed a chi^2 scan varying the mass-width parameter of the Upsilon line shape to see if this would give the same results as those found from the pp event-by-event mass-smearing data-driven study.  The results were consistent with each other, giving us confidence that the mass resolution is under control.  We used the shape of the chi^2 vs. resolution-parameter derived from the data to assign an uncertainty to our mass-resolution parameter knowledge, and used this to estimate a systematic uncertainty on the yields.
We have added a few sentences to the text towards the end of the Experimental  Methods section to give the relevant mass resolution numbers, and to make it clear that the mass resolution is different for pp compared to both dAu and AuAu due to the TPC distortion.  We also added some sentences to discuss this in the description of the invariant mass figures.
The systematic uncertainties due to our knowledge of the line-shapes, which are directly related to the separation between the Upsilon(1S) and the excited states, are also listed in the systematic uncertainty table that we added to the paper. The rows listing the uncertainty due to the line shape, including these mass resolution effects and the uncertainty in the knowledge of these TPC distortions, are given in the table.  Finally, we also added a systematic uncertainty to the extraction of the Upsilon(1S) yield based on the purity of our mass cut.  This is affected not only by the knowledge of the line shapes, as discussed above, but also by the possible suppression of the excited states.  We estimated this uncertainty by comparing the case of no suppression to that of complete suppression of the excited states, and recalculated the Upsilon(1S) purity for each.  The systematic uncertainty table has a row giveing the value of this uncertainty on the Upsilon(1S) yield, and we also added text to clarify it in the paper.

3.  Fig. 2b

even at y = 0 the difference between data and models is less than 2
sigma, taking uncertainties due to the pp reference into account and I
and initial state parton energy loss in these data.

With the new fit results, only the point at y=0 is different from the models, and while the difference is now of order ~3sigma, the two other points do not show any deviation from the models. The text has been changed removing the sentence mentioning effects beyond shadowing.  Also, thanks to this comment, we realized that we had plotted the full pp cross section systematic uncertainty on the figure, but for the purposes of R_dAu, some of these systematic uncertainties cancel.  Therefore, the band illustrating the systematics due to the pp reference should have been smaller, and this has now been corrected.

4. in Fig. 3 the size of the systematic errors should be indicated.

The problem is that none of the data points from E772 had systematic uncertainties, so we cannot include them.  We have indicated the size of our systematics in the plots.

5.  in Fig. 5 it is demonstrated that the observed suppression near
midrapidity is independent of system size (N_part). This could imply
that the higher Y states are already disappeared in dAu
collisions. This is mentioned briefly in the conclusion, but could be
stressed more.

The statement we made in the paper is complementary to the one suggested by the referee. We state at the end of the paper that we cannot claim that the suppression in AuAu is unambiguously from color deconfinement in AuAu given the suppression in dAu.  The reason we stated it like this is that the expectation was for only a minimal amount of suppression in dAu, but our results are a call for caution and for considering other hypotheses.  The referee's comment is a call to consider a specific hypothesis: that the higher Upsilon states already dissappear in dAu collisions. This is a hypothesis that is not accounted for yet in any model. While we are not advocating any particular hypothesis for dAu suppression, we can add a sentence phrased as suggested here, just to stress that our data elicit new thinking about Upsilon suppression in dAu.

6.  At LHC energy, the anisotropic model of Strickland reproduces well

the centrality dependence of R_AA but not the rapidity dependence,
see, e.g. the final session of the recent hard probes meeting in South
Africa.

The predictions from Strickland shown in Fig. 4 are rapidity-dependent. Our data agree fairly well in both rapidity ranges. The rapidity range examined by the slides shown in Strickland's Hard Probes talk (|y|<4.0) is much wider than the ranges we examine (|y|<1.0). Looking at the models, we do not expect to see much variation at all in the range we examine which is consistent with our observation. To see this variation, we would need to examine a much wider rapidity range which is not the focus of this paper.  (To constrain models at larger rapidities, it will be interesting to see the PHENIX results near |y|~2, which should be submitted for publication soon.)

7.  The presentation in Fig. 6 on the quantitative evaluation of
different model assumptions compared to data depends again strongly on
the size of the systematic errors, see the comment in section 2.

We've added a table and a new plot summarizing efficiencies and systematics.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reviewer #2: I have read the manuscript PLB-D-13-01645 submitted to me for review.
The authors present a detail analysis on the suppression of Y production in d+Au and Au+Au collisions at sqrt(s_NN)=200 GeV using the STAR detector at RHIC. The article is very well written and deserves publication. However, I would like to suggest considering the following remarks to improve the understandability of the article:

1. Page 1, column 1, paragraph 1: The now accepted value for the critical temperature (chiral transition) is Tc = 150 - 160 MeV (depending on the exact definition of the observables). Reference 3 is outdated and should be replaced by more recent publications, i.e. arXiv:1005.3508 [hep-lat]

See response to first reviewer's comment #1. References have been updated. Furthermore, the Tc noted here (the chiral transition) is not the relevant phase transition for quarkonium suppression. The more relevant one is the deconfinement transition (which is somewhat broad as currently noted in the text).

2. Page 2, column 2, paragraph 1: Please quantify the corrections due to the trigger bias w.r.t. the event centrality. Same for the tracking efficiency as a function of N_part. How does acceptance times efficiency for detecting Y as a function of rapidity and N_part looks like?

Added a new figure summarizing the total efficiency as a function of N_part and rapidity.

3. Page 3, column 1, paragraph 1: statement "some information will be lost" is too general! What are the systematic uncertainties arising from the different methods (same-event like-sign CB, fit to the CB) of the combinatorial background subtraction? What is the signal significance, in particular in the d+Au measurement? How does the signal looks like after CB and physical background subtraction? Systematic errors should be clearly mentioned.

Many thanks to the referee for mentioning this. In the process of investigating the systematic difference between extracting the upsilon yield through simultaneous fitting compared to background subtraction, we also investigated the effects of chi^2 fits compared to likelihood fits. We used chi^2 fits in our original submission. We were aware that extracting yields using a chi^2 fit introduces a bias. We attempted to minimize this bias by extracting the yields using the integral of the data. However, we still needed to subtract the backgrounds and the bakground yields came from the fits. Through investigation, we have demonstrated that chi^2 fits systematically underestimate the background yield, leading to an overestimate of the upsilon signals.

We have studied these effects through various MC simulations in order to extract the biases. The likelihood fits have negligible biases. Furthermore, and to get back to the original question posed by the referee, in these simulations we obtained the variance of our results when doing simultaneous fits when compared to background-subtracted fits. We found a reduction in the variance when using simultaneous fits which was our original impetus. We also found no systematic effect in the expectation values of the yields obtained by the two different fitting methods. However, given the reduction in the variance of the extracted yield (i.e. in their error) in the simultaneous fit, we favor this method since it introduces a smaller uncertainty. We have redone all of our fits using the likelihood method and we corrected for any extraction biases seen through simulation.

Regarding signal significance, in all cases we see significant signals in d+Au. This can be infered by examining Fig. 3a and comparing the size of the statistical+fit error bars to the measured value of the cross section. This ratio is a good indicator of the statistical significance of our signal. For example, the dAu signal at |y|<0.5 has a significance of 11.7/3.2 = 3.7 sigma.

4. Fig 1: It would be easier for reader if the range of the y axis would be the same in Fig 1a and Fig 1b. Why is the explanation of the grey curves in the figure discussed in this complicated way, to my understanding the gray band simply shows the pp yield scaled by the number of binary collisions? If so, the label could read simply pp*<N_coll>.

The axes in Figs. 1a and 1b now match. We've relabeled the gray band.

5. Fig 1a: From where the line shape for pp comes from? It seems NOT to fit experimental data, i.e. all data points around 9 GeV/c^2 and below. Is it then evident to take as a cross section the integral of the data points?

The line shape in pp comes from simulations embedded in real data. Below 9 GeV, the lineshape threads between high and low datapoints. It cannot fit exactly to all of them without introducing wiggles in the function.

6. Page 3, column 2, paragraph 1: How was the measured Y(1S+2S+3S) yield transformed to cross section?

The cross section was calculated by correcting for EID efficiencies, triggering efficiencies, and acceptance to get a corrected yield. We then divided by the integrated luminosity to get a cross section.

7. Page 3, column 2, paragraph 3 (wording):  "Hence, averaging between forward and reverse rapidities is not warranted as it is in

p+p." -->  "Hence, averaging between forward and backward rapidities is not justified as it is in p+p." sounds more understandable.

Since the two words are very closely related (Merriam-Webster includes "justification" as one of the definitions of "warrant"), this is more a matter of style. The authors prefer the word "warranted."

8. Page 4: Try to arrange the placement of Figs such that there will not be a single line of the text within one column.

Done

9. Fig 2: also here Fig a and Fig b could be presented with the same range on the Y axis, e.g. from -3 to 3.

Done.

10. Fig 2a : what is shown here is Y(1S+2S+3S), moreover PHENIX results on Y -> mu+mu- are shown in the same plot, that is why the figure label should be changed, i.e. Y->e+e- should be replaced by Y(1S+2S+3S)

We changed the label to Y->l+l- to represent leptons.

11. Page 4, column 2, paragraph 2: <N_coll> (not <N_bin>) is commonly used as notation for the number of binary collisions. Sigma_AA is sigma^tot_AA (same for pp). It is important to indicate in the text the values for the total inelastic cross sections in pp, dA and AA and <N_coll> used to calculate R_AA.

Now using <N_coll>. Inelastic cross sections are provided inline.

12. Page 4, column 2, paragraph 3: In view of the discussion would it be helpful to also show R_AuAu vs. Rapidity?

We have addede new plots to the paper, and given the length considerations, and that this plot doesn't really add any new information beyond the existing tables and figures, for the sake of space, we would prefer to leave this plot out.

13. Page 6, column 1, paragraph 1: Which function has been used to fit the CB - exponential? Again, what are the systematic uncertainty arising from the different methods (same-event like-sign CB, fit to the CB) of the combinatorial background subtraction. See also comment 4. concerning the label.

The function used to model the CB is now discussed in the text. Systematics from the fit methods are summarized in Tab. I.

14. Page 6, column 1, paragraph 2: The statement "Similar suppression is found by CMS in PbPb collisions (37)" should be moved to the paragraph 4 where the authors discuss Y(1S) suppression. Actually, for the same value of N_part=325 R_AuAu=0.54+-0.09 as for R_PbPb=0.45

Done.

15. Page 6, column 1, paragraph 4: How did the authors derived: R_AA(1S+2S+3S) = R_AA(1S)*0.69?

We calculate this number by relating the two nuclear modification factors. For the (1S+2S+3S) case, this needs the ratio of the yields of (1S+2S+3S) in AA to the same yield in pp.  Since the R_AA(1S) is the ratio of the yield of the 1S state in AA to that in pp, one can take this out as a common factor in the R_AA(1S+2S+3S), obtaining the relation R_AA(1S+2S+3S)=R_AA(1S) * (1+ N_AA(2S+3S)/N_AA(1S))/(1+N_pp(2S+3S)/N_pp(1S)), where N_AA refers to the yield obtained in AA collisions and N_pp refers to the yield obtained in pp collisions.  This equation makes no assumptions.  When one takes the additional hypothesis that the yield in AA of the excited states is zero, the factor becomes 1/(1+N_pp(2S+3S)/N_pp(1S)). So with the ratio of excited states to ground state in pp collisions, one can find the multiplicative factor.  We calculated this ratio in two manners: first, by using the PDG branching ratios together with NLO pQCD calculations for the upsilon production cross sections (from Ref 21 by Frawley, Ullrich, and Vogt), and, second, by using the measured 2S/1S and 3S/1S ratios. For example, these ratios have been measured at sqrt{s}=38.8 GeV and also at sqrt(s)=2.76 TeV from CMS, and are relatively independent of sqrt(s), or even whether the collision system is pp or pA. In the first case where we used the pQCD cross section and PDF branching ratios, we get 0.69 for the multiplicative factor. In the second case where we only used measured ratios, we get 0.72 +/- 0.02.  The difference between using the low-sqrt(s)-pA data or the CMS pp data at 2.76 TeV is 0.01, which is smaller than the statistical error of the CMS data.
We had aimed to keep the text brief, since we were mindful of the space constraints, but given this question, we have added a few more sentences and references to clarify the R_AA(1S+2S+3S)=R_AA(1S)*0.7 statement, and also reduced our significant figures, quoting only a factor of 0.7.

16. Page 6, column 2, paragraph 2: What are the uncertainties on Drell-Yan and bbbar cross sections and how does it influence the significance of the signal.

Various normalizations are used in the fit. This is accounted for in the correllation

17. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.3891.pdf reports on the first measurement of the Y nuclear modification factor with STAR. It is probably worth to mention this work in the ms.

We are certainly aware of the proceeding mentioned here, which showed preliminary results for these analyses. The author of the proceedings was a member of the institute where the primary analsys shown in this paper was done. The reason we omit the citation to this and to other proceedings where the preliminary results have been shown is that it is a policy of the STAR collaboration to not cite our own proceedings showing preliminary data. This is partly with the goal to make it clear that the final results presented in a given paper, which have gone through the full collaboration review and through the external peer-review process, are the ones that should be referenced once they are available.

18. The R_AA of J/psi (p_T > 5 GeV), Y(1S) and an upper limit on the R_AA (2S+3S) was obtained in STAR. I would like to suggest to add a plot showing R_AA as a function of binding energy as a summary figure (also as a key figure to the long discussion on the extraction of the upper limit on R_AA(2S+3S)).

Good idea. We added this figure towards the end of the paper.

In summary, this ms. contains very interesting results and I propose publication in Phys. Letter B after the authors have taken care of the remarks above.

We thank the referee for her/his comments and remarks, which have helped improve the paper.  We hope that we have addressed the issues raised, and adequately answered the questions posed, and look forward to the publication of the paper.

# Upsilon pp, dAu, AuAu GPC E-mail Responses

This is a page to house long e-mail responses.

# Using Pythia 8 to get b-bbar -> e+e-

We used Pythia 8 to produce b-bbar events. First we used the default Pythia 8. Macro for running with default parameters is here. We then used the STAR Heavy Flavor tune v1.1 for Pythia 8.  The macro for running with the STAR HF tune is here.

The cross-sections reported by Pythia (numbers after 5M events) using the default parameters:

*-------  PYTHIA Event and Cross Section Statistics  -------------------------------------------------------------*
|                                                                                                                 |
| Subprocess                                    Code |            Number of events       |      sigma +- delta    |
|                                                    |       Tried   Selected   Accepted |     (estimated) (mb)   |
|                                                    |                                   |                        |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                    |                                   |                        |
| g g -> b bbar                                  123 |    19262606    4198826    4198275 |   6.971e-04  1.854e-07 |
| q qbar -> b bbar                               124 |     3126270     801174     800981 |   1.331e-04  8.216e-08 |
|                                                    |                                   |                        |
| sum                                                |    22388876    5000000    4999256 |   8.303e-04  2.028e-07 |
|                                                                                                                 |
*-------  End PYTHIA Event and Cross Section Statistics ----------------------------------------------------------*

So gg initiated subprocess has a 0.697 ub cross section and the q-qbar initiated subprocess has a 0.133 ub cross section. The sum for both subprocesses pp -> b bbar is 0.830 ub.

Using the STAR HF Tune, the cross section statistics reported by Pythia change to the following:

*-------  PYTHIA Event and Cross Section Statistics  -------------------------------------------------------------*
|                                                                                                                 |
| Subprocess                                    Code |            Number of events       |      sigma +- delta    |
|                                                    |       Tried   Selected   Accepted |     (estimated) (mb)   |
|                                                    |                                   |                        |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                    |                                   |                        |
| g g -> b bbar                                  123 |    31956918    4520459    4520459 |   9.247e-04  2.542e-07 |
| q qbar -> b bbar                               124 |     2259563     479541     479541 |   9.817e-05  8.544e-08 |
|                                                    |                                   |                        |
| sum                                                |    34216481    5000000    5000000 |   1.023e-03  2.682e-07 |
|                                                                                                                 |
*-------  End PYTHIA Event and Cross Section Statistics ----------------------------------------------------------*

The cross section increases to 1.023 ub with the STAR HF Tune v1.1.  The main changes to the default parameters are the reduction of the bottom quark mass from 4.8 (default) to 4.3 GeV/c2, the change of PDF from CTEQ5L (default) to the LHAPDF set MRSTMCal.LHgrid, and the choice of renormalization and factorization scales.

The selection of e+e- in the final state is done by following the fragmentation of the b or bbar quark into a B meson or baryon, and then looking at its decay products to find an electron or positron.  The pT distribution of the genrated b quarks is shown below.

Fig. 1: Generated b quarks.

The <pT> of the b quarks is 3.3 GeV.  These then fragment into B mesons and baryons.  As an example, we plot here the B0 and B0-bar pT distribution, below.

Fig. 2:Pt distribution of B0 and B0-bar mesons.

The <pT> of the B mesons is 3.055 GeV/c, one can estimate the peak of the Z distribution (most of the momentum of the b quark is carried by the meson, so it should be close to 1) as 3.055/3.331=0.92.

After the beauty hadrons are produced, they can decay producing electrons and positrons.  We search for the e+e- daughters of the beauty hadrons, their pT distribution is shown below.

Fig. 3: pT distribution of the e+ e- daughters of the b quarks.

When an event has both an electron and positron from the b-bbar pair this can generate a trigger.  However, these are generated in all of phase space, and we mainly have acceptance at mid-rapidity.  The full rapidity distribution of the e+e- pairs is shown below:

Fig. 4: Rapidity distribution of the e+e- pairs from b decay.

The distribution is well approximated by a Gaussian with mean ~ 0 and width close to 1 (off by 4.3%).

We calculate the invariant mass. This is shown below:

Fig 6. Invariant mass spectrum of e-e+ pairs originating from b-bbar pairs.

The red histogram is for all e+e- pairs generated by Pythia.  The blue histogram is for pairs with |y_pair|<0.5, which is the region of interest. The distributions are fit to a function to parameterize the shape, shown in the black lines.  This is inspired by using a QCD tree-level power-law distribution multiplied with a phase-space factor in the numerator. The fit parameters for the blue line are:

• b = 1.59 +/- 0.06
• c = 27.6 +/- 5.8
• m0 = 29.7 +/- 7.8

Using the STAR HF Tune, the parameters are:

• b = 1.45 +/- 0.05
• c = 64.2 +/- 26.1
• m0 = 49.7 +/- 18.0

With the default parameters, in mass region 8 < m < 11 GeV/c2 and for |y|<0.5 the Pythia prediction is for a cross section of 29.5 pb.

With the STAR HF Tune, in the same phase space region the Pythia prediciton is for a cross section of 46.9 pb.

One can calculate from the Pythia cross section, the STAR efficiency*acceptance and the integrated luminosity the expected yield in the region 8< m < 11 GeV/c2. This gives 12 expected counts for trigger 137603, assuming the trigger doesn't affect the invariant mass shape.

However, tince the trigger has a turn-on region, we need to take this into account.  The turn on can be obtained by looking at the background counts in the real data.  By modeling the background with an error function of the form (erf((m-m0)/sigma)+1)/2 and multiplying by an exponential, we obtain the parameters m0=8.07 +/- 0.74 GeV/c2 and sigma = 1.75 +/- 0.45 GeV/c2. The fit to obtain the error function is shown below (it is one of the figures in the paper):

Fig. 7 Unlike-sign and like-sign invariant mass distributions from data. The like-sign is fit with and exponential multiplied by an erf.

We then need to apply this function to parameterize the turn-on region of the trigger to the b-bbar e+e- invariant mass spectrum.  We have one additional piece of information from the efficiency estimation: the overall acceptance * trigger efficiency * tracking efficiency and including additional PID cuts for the Upsilon(12) is 5.4%, we can use this to normalize the function after including the trigger turn-on so that at M=10 GeV/c2 it gives 5.4% of the yield before applying the trigger turn-on.  This way we take care of the trigger turn-on shape and the overall normalization given by the acceptance, efficiency, etc. obtained from the upsilon embedding.  This assumes that an e+e- pair with invariant mass identical to the upsilon will have identical efficiency and acceptance.  Using this, we estimate the yield in the region 8<m<11 including the trigger turn-on and acceptance and efficiency to be 19 counts from b-bbar in the Upsilon mass region in the entire dataset.

For the STAR HF Tune, the cross section is larger and the expected counts are larger:

# Code to run Pythia and produce b-bbar -> e+ e- events

// main00.cc
// Modified from the main01.cc
// which is a part of the PYTHIA event generator.
// Copyright (C) 2008 Torbjorn Sjostrand.
// PYTHIA is licenced under the GNU GPL version 2, see COPYING for details.
// Please respect the MCnet Guidelines, see GUIDELINES for details.

// This is a simple test program.

#include "Pythia.h"

#include "TROOT.h"
#include "TFile.h"
#include "TH1.h"

// This snippet is meant to capture all B hadrons
// as given in the PDG.
if (id<0) id*=-1;
if (id<500) return false;
return (fmod(id/100,5.)==0.0 || id/1000==5);
}

using namespace Pythia8;
int main() {
// Initialize root
TROOT root("Manuel's ROOT Session","PYTHIA Histograms");

// Generator. Process selection. LHC initialization. Histogram.
Pythia pythia;

// Uncomment line below to turns on all HardQCD processses
// These are 111-116 and  121-124

// Turn on only bbar production:
// g g    -> b bbar (subprocess 123)
// q qbar -> b bbar (subprocess 124)

// Random number Generator Should be Set Here if needed (before pythia.init())
// On seeds:
// seed = -1 : default (any number < 0 will revert to the default).  seed = 19780503
// seed = 0 : calls Stdlib time(0) to provide a seed based on the unix time
// seed = 1 through 900 000 000: various numbers that can be used as seeds

//pythia.readString("Random.setSeed = on");// doesn't work needs fixing

pythia.init( 2212, 2212, 200.);
Hist mult("charged multiplicity", 100, -0.5, 799.5);

TH1D* multHist = new TH1D("multHist","Multiplicity",100,-0.5,99.5);
TH1D* bquarkPt = new TH1D("bquarkPt","bquarkPt",100,0,50);
TH1D* bbarquarkPt = new TH1D("bbarquarkPt","bbar quark Pt",100,0,50);
TH1D* B0mesonPt = new TH1D("BOmesonPt","B0mesonPt",100,0,50);
TH1D* B0barmesonPt = new TH1D("BObarmesonPt","B0bar meson Pt",100,0,50);
TH1D* electronFrombPt = new TH1D("electronFrombPt","electrons from b",100,0,30);
TH1D* positronFrombPt = new TH1D("positronFrombPt","positrons from b",100,0,30);
TH1D* epluseminusMinv = new TH1D("epluseminusMinv","e+ e- Inv. Mass",100,0,30);

// Begin event loop. Generate event. Skip if error. List first one.
for (int iEvent = 0; iEvent < 10000; ++iEvent) {
if (!pythia.next()) continue;
if (iEvent < 1) {pythia.info.list(); pythia.event.list();}
// Find number of all final charged particles and fill histogram.
// Find the b (id = 5) and bbar (id = -5), find their daughters,
// if daughters include electron (id = 11) and positron (id=-11), calculate their
// invariant mass
// Status flags:
//   21 incoming particles of hardest subprocess
//   23 outgoing particles of hardest subprocess
//   91-99 particles produced in decay process or by B-E effects (e.g. the electrons)

int nCharged = 0;
int indexBQuark(0), indexBbarQuark(0);
for (int i = 0; i < pythia.event.size(); ++i) {
if (pythia.event[i].isFinal() && pythia.event[i].isCharged()) {
++nCharged;
}
Particle& theParticle = pythia.event[i];

if (theParticle.id() == 5 ) {
indexBQuark = i;
//cout << "Mother 1, Mother 2 = " << theParticle.mother1() << ", " << theParticle.mother2() << endl;
}
if (theParticle.id() == -5) {
indexBbarQuark = i;
//cout << "Mother 1, Mother 2 = " << theParticle.mother1() << ", " << theParticle.mother2() << endl;
}
} // particle loop

cout << "Found b quark at index " << indexBQuark << endl;
cout << "Found bbar quark at index " << indexBbarQuark << endl;
bquarkPt->Fill(pythia.event[indexBQuark].pT());
bbarquarkPt->Fill(pythia.event[indexBbarQuark].pT());
mult.fill( nCharged );
multHist->Fill(nCharged);
//cout << "Event " << iEvent << ", Nch= " << nCharged << endl;

//Find hadronization products of b and bbar.
int bQuarkDaughter1 = pythia.event[indexBQuark].daughter1();
int bQuarkDaughter2 = pythia.event[indexBQuark].daughter2();
int bbarQuarkDaughter1 = pythia.event[indexBbarQuark].daughter1();
int bbarQuarkDaughter2 = pythia.event[indexBbarQuark].daughter2();

// Obtain the two hadrons from the fragmentation process
// Use the PDG id's for this.  All B mesons id's are of the form xx5xx, and
// all B baryons are of the form 5xxx.
// So we obtain the id, (make it positive if needed) and then test
// to see if it is a meson with fmod(currId/100,5)==0.0
// to see if it is a baryon with currId/1000==5
if (bQuarkDaughter1<bQuarkDaughter2) {
cout << "Daughters of b Quark" << endl;
for (int j=bQuarkDaughter1; j<=bQuarkDaughter2; ++j) {
cout << "Fragmentation: b -> " << pythia.event[j].name() << endl;
cout << "                 id " << pythia.event[j].id() << " at index " << j << endl;
}
}
}
if (bbarQuarkDaughter1<bbarQuarkDaughter2) {
cout << "Daughters of bbar Quark" << endl;
for (int k=bbarQuarkDaughter1; k<=bbarQuarkDaughter2; ++k) {
cout << "Fragmentation : bbar -> " << pythia.event[k].name()  << endl;
cout << "                     id " << pythia.event[k].id() << " at index " << k << endl;
}
}
}
// Search the daughters of the hadrons until electrons and positrons are found
// if there are any from a semileptonic decay of a beauty hadron
while (Daughter!=0) {
cout << "Checking " << pythia.event[Daughter].name() << " for e+/e- daughters" << endl;
if (pythia.event[Daughter].id()==-511) {
// This is a Bbar0, enter its pT
cout << "Filling Bbar0 pT" << endl;
B0barmesonPt->Fill(pythia.event[Daughter].pT());
}
if (pythia.event[Daughter].id()==511) {
// This is a B0, enter its pT
cout << "Filling Bbar0 pT" << endl;
B0mesonPt->Fill(pythia.event[Daughter].pT());
}
int nextDaughter1 = pythia.event[Daughter].daughter1();
int nextDaughter2 = pythia.event[Daughter].daughter2();
// search for electron or positron
for (int iDaughter = nextDaughter1; iDaughter<=nextDaughter2; ++iDaughter) {
if (pythia.event[iDaughter].id()==11) {
cout << "Found electron" << endl;
cout << pythia.event[iDaughter].name() << endl;
electronIndex=iDaughter;
electronFrombPt->Fill(pythia.event[electronIndex].pT());
break;
}
if (pythia.event[iDaughter].id()==-11) {
cout << "Found positron" << endl;
cout << pythia.event[iDaughter].name() << endl;
positronIndex=iDaughter;
positronFrombPt->Fill(pythia.event[positronIndex].pT());
break;
}
}// loop over daughters to check for e+e-

// If we get here, that means there were no electrons nor positrons.
// Set the Daughter index to zero now.
Daughter = 0;
// If any of the daughters is still a beauty-hadron, we can try again
// and reset the Daughter index, but only if one of the daughters contains a
// b quark.
for (int jDaughter = nextDaughter1; jDaughter<=nextDaughter2; ++jDaughter) {
//One of the daughters is a beauty hadron.
Daughter = jDaughter;
}
}// loop over daughters to check for another b hadron
}// end of search for electrons in all the daughters of the b quark

// Now search among the daughters of the bbar quark
while (Daughter!=0) {
cout << "Checking " << pythia.event[Daughter].name() << " for e+/e- daughters" << endl;
if (pythia.event[Daughter].id()==-511) {
// This is a Bbar0, enter its pT
cout << "Filling Bbar0 pT" << endl;
B0barmesonPt->Fill(pythia.event[Daughter].pT());
}
if (pythia.event[Daughter].id()==511) {
// This is a B0, enter its pT
cout << "Filling B0 pT" << endl;
B0mesonPt->Fill(pythia.event[Daughter].pT());
}
int nextDaughter1 = pythia.event[Daughter].daughter1();
int nextDaughter2 = pythia.event[Daughter].daughter2();
// search for electron or positron
for (int iDaughter = nextDaughter1; iDaughter<=nextDaughter2; ++iDaughter) {
//cout << "daughter is a " << pythia.event[iDaughter].name() << endl;
if (pythia.event[iDaughter].id()==11) {
cout << "Found electron" << endl;
cout << pythia.event[iDaughter].name() << endl;
electronIndex=iDaughter;
electronFrombPt->Fill(pythia.event[electronIndex].pT());
break;
}
if (pythia.event[iDaughter].id()==-11) {
cout << "Found positron" << endl;
cout << pythia.event[iDaughter].name() << endl;
positronIndex=iDaughter;
positronFrombPt->Fill(pythia.event[positronIndex].pT());
break;
}
}// loop over daughters to check for e+e-

// If we get here, that means there were no electrons nor positrons.
// Set the Daughter index to zero now.
Daughter = 0;
// If any of the daughters is still a beauty-hadron, we can try again
// and reset the Daughter index, but only if one of the daughters contains a
// b quark.
for (int jDaughter = nextDaughter1; jDaughter<=nextDaughter2; ++jDaughter) {
//One of the daughters is a beauty hadron.
Daughter = jDaughter;
}
}// loop over daughters to check for another b hadron
}//end of search for electron among daughters of bbar quark

if (electronIndex!=0 && positronIndex!=0) {
cout << "Found an e+e- pair from bbar" << endl;
cout << "Ele 4-mom = " << pythia.event[electronIndex].p() << endl;
cout << "Pos 4-mom = " << pythia.event[positronIndex].p() << endl;
Vec4 epluseminus(pythia.event[electronIndex].p()+pythia.event[positronIndex].p());
epluseminusMinv->Fill(epluseminus.mCalc());
}
else {
cout << "No e+e- pair in event" << endl;
}

// End of event loop. Statistics. Histogram. Done.
}// event loop
pythia.statistics();
//cout << mult << endl;

//Write Output ROOT hisotgram into ROOT file
TFile* outFile = new TFile("pythiaOutputHistos1M.root","RECREATE");
multHist->Write();
bquarkPt->Write();
bbarquarkPt->Write();
B0mesonPt->Write();
B0barmesonPt->Write();
electronFrombPt->Write();
positronFrombPt->Write();
epluseminusMinv->Write();
outFile->Close();

return 0;
}

# Code to run with STAR HF Tune

// main00.cc
// Modified from the main01.cc
// which is a part of the PYTHIA event generator.
// Copyright (C) 2008 Torbjorn Sjostrand.
// PYTHIA is licenced under the GNU GPL version 2, see COPYING for details.
// Please respect the MCnet Guidelines, see GUIDELINES for details.

// This is a simple test program.

#include "Pythia.h"
#include "Basics.h"

#include "TROOT.h"
#include "TFile.h"
#include "TH1.h"

// This snippet is meant to capture all B hadrons
// as given in the PDG.
if (id<0) id*=-1;
if (id<500) return false;
return (fmod(id/100,5.)==0.0 || id/1000==5);
}

using namespace Pythia8;

double myRapidity(Vec4& p) {
return 0.5*log(p.pPlus()/p.pMinus());
}

int main() {
// Initialize root
TROOT root("Manuel's ROOT Session","PYTHIA Histograms");

// Generator. Process selection. LHC initialization. Histogram.
Pythia pythia;

// Shorthand for some public members of pythia (also static ones).
//Event& event = pythia.event;
ParticleDataTable& pdt = pythia.particleData;
// The cmnd file below contains
// the Pythia Tune parameters
// the processes that are turned on
// and the PDFs used
// for the pythia run.

UserHooks *oniumUserHook = new SuppressSmallPT();
pythia.setUserHooksPtr(oniumUserHook);

cout << "Mass of b quark " << ParticleDataTable::mass(5) << endl;
cout << "Mass of b bar   " << ParticleDataTable::mass(-5) << endl;

// Extract settings to be used in the main program.
int    nEvent  = pythia.mode("Main:numberOfEvents");
int    nList   = pythia.mode("Main:numberToList");
int    nShow   = pythia.mode("Main:timesToShow");
int nAllowErr  = pythia.mode("Main:timesAllowErrors");
bool   showCS  = pythia.flag("Main:showChangedSettings");
bool showSett  = pythia.flag("Main:showAllSettings");
bool showStat  = pythia.flag("Main:showAllStatistics");
bool   showCPD = pythia.flag("Main:showChangedParticleData");

pythia.init();
if (showSett) pythia.settings.listAll();
if (showCS) pythia.settings.listChanged();
if (showCPD) pdt.listChanged();

Hist mult("charged multiplicity", 100, -0.5, 799.5);

TH1D* multHist = new TH1D("multHist","Multiplicity",100,-0.5,99.5);
TH1D* bquarkPt = new TH1D("bquarkPt","bquarkPt",100,0,50);
TH1D* bbarquarkPt = new TH1D("bbarquarkPt","bbar quark Pt",100,0,50);
TH1D* B0mesonPt = new TH1D("BOmesonPt","B0mesonPt",100,0,50);
TH1D* B0barmesonPt = new TH1D("BObarmesonPt","B0bar meson Pt",100,0,50);
TH1D* BplusmesonPt = new TH1D("BplusmesonPt","BplusmesonPt",100,0,50);
TH1D* BminusmesonPt = new TH1D("BminusmesonPt","Bminus meson Pt",100,0,50);
TH1D* BplusmesonPtCDFrap = new TH1D("BplusmesonPtCDFrap","BplusmesonPt |y|<1",100,0,50);
TH1D* BminusmesonPtCDFrap = new TH1D("BminusmesonPtCDFrap","Bminus meson Pt |y|<1",100,0,50);
TH1D* electronFrombPt = new TH1D("electronFrombPt","electrons from b",100,0,30);
TH1D* positronFrombPt = new TH1D("positronFrombPt","positrons from b",100,0,30);
TH1D* epluseminusMinv = new TH1D("epluseminusMinv","e+ e- Inv. Mass",300,0,30);
TH1D* epluseminusRapidity = new TH1D("epluseminusRapidity","e+ e- y",80,-4,4);
TH1D* epluseminusMinvMidRap = new TH1D("epluseminusMinvMidRap","e+ e- Inv. Mass |y|<0.5",300,0,30);

// Begin event loop. Generate event. Skip if error. List first one.
int nPace = max(1,nEvent/nShow);
int nErrors(0);
for (int iEvent = 0; iEvent < nEvent; ++iEvent) {
if (!pythia.next()) {
++nErrors;
if (nErrors>=nAllowErr) {
cout << "Reached error limit : " << nErrors << endl;
cout << "Bailing out! " << endl;
break;
}
continue;
}
if (iEvent%nPace == 0) cout << " Now begin event " << iEvent << endl;
if (iEvent < nList) {pythia.info.list(); pythia.event.list();}
// Find number of all final charged particles and fill histogram.
// Find the b (id = 5) and bbar (id = -5), find their daughters,
// if daughters include electron (id = 11) and positron (id=-11), calculate their
// invariant mass
// Status flags:
//   21 incoming particles of hardest subprocess
//   23 outgoing particles of hardest subprocess
//   91-99 particles produced in decay process or by B-E effects (e.g. the electrons)

int nCharged = 0;
int indexBQuark(0), indexBbarQuark(0);
for (int i = 0; i < pythia.event.size(); ++i) {
if (pythia.event[i].isFinal() && pythia.event[i].isCharged()) {
++nCharged;
}
Particle& theParticle = pythia.event[i];

if (theParticle.id() == 5 ) {
indexBQuark = i;
//cout << "Mother 1, Mother 2 = " << theParticle.mother1() << ", " << theParticle.mother2() << endl;
}
if (theParticle.id() == -5) {
indexBbarQuark = i;
//cout << "Mother 1, Mother 2 = " << theParticle.mother1() << ", " << theParticle.mother2() << endl;
}
} // particle loop

cout << "Found b quark at index " << indexBQuark << endl;
cout << "Found bbar quark at index " << indexBbarQuark << endl;
bquarkPt->Fill(pythia.event[indexBQuark].pT());
bbarquarkPt->Fill(pythia.event[indexBbarQuark].pT());
mult.fill( nCharged );
multHist->Fill(nCharged);
//cout << "Event " << iEvent << ", Nch= " << nCharged << endl;

//Find hadronization products of b and bbar.
int bQuarkDaughter1 = pythia.event[indexBQuark].daughter1();//first daughter index
int bQuarkDaughter2 = pythia.event[indexBQuark].daughter2();//last daughter index
int bbarQuarkDaughter1 = pythia.event[indexBbarQuark].daughter1();
int bbarQuarkDaughter2 = pythia.event[indexBbarQuark].daughter2();

// Obtain the two hadrons from the fragmentation process
// Use the PDG id's for this.  All B mesons id's are of the form xx5xx, and
// all B baryons are of the form 5xxx.
// So we obtain the id, (make it positive if needed) and then test
// to see if it is a meson with fmod(currId/100,5)==0.0
// to see if it is a baryon with currId/1000==5
if (bQuarkDaughter1<bQuarkDaughter2) {
cout << "Daughters of b Quark" << endl;
for (int j=bQuarkDaughter1; j<=bQuarkDaughter2; ++j) {
cout << "Fragmentation: b -> " << pythia.event[j].name() << endl;
cout << "                 id " << pythia.event[j].id() << " at index " << j << endl;
}
}
}
if (bbarQuarkDaughter1<bbarQuarkDaughter2) {
cout << "Daughters of bbar Quark" << endl;
for (int k=bbarQuarkDaughter1; k<=bbarQuarkDaughter2; ++k) {
cout << "Fragmentation : bbar -> " << pythia.event[k].name()  << endl;
cout << "                     id " << pythia.event[k].id() << " at index " << k << endl;
}
}
}
// Search the daughters of the hadrons until electrons and positrons are found
// if there are any from a semileptonic decay of a beauty hadron
// Start with the b quark, the b-bar quark loop comes after this
while (Daughter!=0) {
cout << "Checking " << pythia.event[Daughter].name() << " for e+/e- daughters" << endl;
if (pythia.event[Daughter].id()==-511) {
// This is a Bbar0, enter its pT
cout << "Filling Bbar0 pT" << endl;
B0barmesonPt->Fill(pythia.event[Daughter].pT());
}
if (pythia.event[Daughter].id()==511) {
// This is a B0, enter its pT
cout << "Filling Bbar0 pT" << endl;
B0mesonPt->Fill(pythia.event[Daughter].pT());
}
Vec4 daughterVec4 = pythia.event[Daughter].p();
double daughterRap = myRapidity(daughterVec4);

if (pythia.event[Daughter].id()==-521) {
// This is a Bminus, enter its pT
cout << "Filling Bminus pT" << endl;
BminusmesonPt->Fill(pythia.event[Daughter].pT());
if (fabs(daughterRap)<1.0) {
BminusmesonPtCDFrap->Fill(pythia.event[Daughter].pT());
}
}
if (pythia.event[Daughter].id()==521) {
// This is a Bplus, enter its pT
cout << "Filling Bplus pT" << endl;
BplusmesonPt->Fill(pythia.event[Daughter].pT());
if (fabs(daughterRap)<1.0) {
BplusmesonPtCDFrap->Fill(pythia.event[Daughter].pT());
}
}
int nextDaughter1 = pythia.event[Daughter].daughter1();
int nextDaughter2 = pythia.event[Daughter].daughter2();
// search for electron or positron
for (int iDaughter = nextDaughter1; iDaughter<=nextDaughter2; ++iDaughter) {
if (pythia.event[iDaughter].id()==11) {
cout << "Found electron" << endl;
cout << pythia.event[iDaughter].name() << endl;
electronIndex=iDaughter;
electronFrombPt->Fill(pythia.event[electronIndex].pT());
break;
}
if (pythia.event[iDaughter].id()==-11) {
cout << "Found positron" << endl;
cout << pythia.event[iDaughter].name() << endl;
positronIndex=iDaughter;
positronFrombPt->Fill(pythia.event[positronIndex].pT());
break;
}
}// loop over daughters to check for e+e-

// If we get here, that means there were no electrons nor positrons.
// Set the Daughter index to zero now.
Daughter = 0;
// If any of the daughters is still a beauty-hadron, we can try again
// and reset the Daughter index, but only if one of the daughters contains a
// b quark.
for (int jDaughter = nextDaughter1; jDaughter<=nextDaughter2; ++jDaughter) {
//One of the daughters is a beauty hadron.
Daughter = jDaughter;
}
}// loop over daughters to check for another b hadron
}// end of search for electrons in all the daughters of the b quark

// Now search among the daughters of the bbar quark
while (Daughter!=0) {
cout << "Checking " << pythia.event[Daughter].name() << " for e+/e- daughters" << endl;
if (pythia.event[Daughter].id()==-511) {
// This is a Bbar0, enter its pT
cout << "Filling Bbar0 pT" << endl;
B0barmesonPt->Fill(pythia.event[Daughter].pT());
}
if (pythia.event[Daughter].id()==511) {
// This is a B0, enter its pT
cout << "Filling B0 pT" << endl;
B0mesonPt->Fill(pythia.event[Daughter].pT());
}
Vec4 daughterVec4 = pythia.event[Daughter].p();
double daughterRap = myRapidity(daughterVec4);

if (pythia.event[Daughter].id()==-521) {
// This is a Bminus, enter its pT
cout << "Filling Bminus pT" << endl;
BminusmesonPt->Fill(pythia.event[Daughter].pT());
if (fabs(daughterRap)<1.0) {
BminusmesonPtCDFrap->Fill(pythia.event[Daughter].pT());
}
}
if (pythia.event[Daughter].id()==521) {
// This is a Bplus, enter its pT
cout << "Filling Bplus pT" << endl;
BplusmesonPt->Fill(pythia.event[Daughter].pT());
if (fabs(daughterRap)<1.0) {
BplusmesonPtCDFrap->Fill(pythia.event[Daughter].pT());
}
}

int nextDaughter1 = pythia.event[Daughter].daughter1();
int nextDaughter2 = pythia.event[Daughter].daughter2();
// search for electron or positron
for (int iDaughter = nextDaughter1; iDaughter<=nextDaughter2; ++iDaughter) {
//cout << "daughter is a " << pythia.event[iDaughter].name() << endl;
if (pythia.event[iDaughter].id()==11) {
cout << "Found electron" << endl;
cout << pythia.event[iDaughter].name() << endl;
electronIndex=iDaughter;
electronFrombPt->Fill(pythia.event[electronIndex].pT());
break;
}
if (pythia.event[iDaughter].id()==-11) {
cout << "Found positron" << endl;
cout << pythia.event[iDaughter].name() << endl;
positronIndex=iDaughter;
positronFrombPt->Fill(pythia.event[positronIndex].pT());
break;
}
}// loop over daughters to check for e+e-

// If we get here, that means there were no electrons nor positrons.
// Set the Daughter index to zero now.
Daughter = 0;
// If any of the daughters is still a beauty-hadron, we can try again
// and reset the Daughter index, but only if one of the daughters contains a
// b quark.
for (int jDaughter = nextDaughter1; jDaughter<=nextDaughter2; ++jDaughter) {
//One of the daughters is a beauty hadron.
Daughter = jDaughter;
}
}// loop over daughters to check for another b hadron
}//end of search for electron among daughters of bbar quark

if (electronIndex!=0 && positronIndex!=0) {
cout << "Found an e+e- pair from bbar" << endl;
cout << "Ele 4-mom = " << pythia.event[electronIndex].p() << endl;
cout << "Pos 4-mom = " << pythia.event[positronIndex].p() << endl;
Vec4 epluseminus(pythia.event[electronIndex].p()+pythia.event[positronIndex].p());
epluseminusMinv->Fill(epluseminus.mCalc());
double epluseminusRap = 0.5*log((epluseminus.e()+epluseminus.pz())/(epluseminus.e()-epluseminus.pz()));
epluseminusRapidity->Fill(epluseminusRap);
if (fabs(epluseminusRap)<0.5) epluseminusMinvMidRap->Fill(epluseminus.mCalc());
}
else {
cout << "No e+e- pair in event" << endl;
}

// End of event loop. Statistics. Histogram. Done.
}// event loop
if (showStat) pythia.statistics();
//cout << mult << endl;

//Write Output ROOT hisotgram into ROOT file
TFile* outFile = new TFile("pythiaOutputHistosTest.root","RECREATE");
multHist->Write();
bquarkPt->Write();
bbarquarkPt->Write();
B0mesonPt->Write();
B0barmesonPt->Write();
BplusmesonPt->Write();
BminusmesonPt->Write();
BplusmesonPtCDFrap->Write();
BminusmesonPtCDFrap->Write();
electronFrombPt->Write();
positronFrombPt->Write();
epluseminusMinv->Write();
epluseminusRapidity->Write();
epluseminusMinvMidRap->Write();
outFile->Close();

return 0;
}

# Varying the Continuum Contribution to the Dielectron Mass Spectrum

## Initial Normalization

The normalization to the Drell-Yan and b-bbar cross sections are given by the calculation from Ramona in the Drell-Yan case and by Pythia in the b-bbar case.  There is an uncertainty in the overall normalization of the contribution from these two sources to the dielectron continuum under the Upsilon peak.  We can do a fit to obtain the Upsilon yield with the normalization fixed.  This is shown below.

Fig. 1: Fit to the invariant mass spectrum.  The data points are in blue. The Drell-Yan curve is the dot-dashed line and the b-bbar is the dashed line.  The Red line is the sum of the Upsilon line shape (obtained from embedding for the 1S+2S+3S keeping their ratios according to the PDG values) plus the continuum contribution from DY+b-bbar.  The red histogram is the integral of the red line, which is what is used to compare to the data in the fit (we fit using the "i" option to use the integral of the function in each bin).

With the above fit, we obtain 64.3 counts after integrating the upsilon part (the yield of DY is 32.3 and the yield of b-bbar is 26.8, both are held fixed for the fit). This gives a cross section of 63.4/(1*0.054*9.6 pb-1) = 124 pb.  The efficiency estimate of 5.4% for the overall efficiency is still being checked though, given the E/p shape not being gaussian due to the trigger bias near the L0 threshold, so this can still change.

It is also possible to let the yield of the continuum vary and study if the chisquare/dof of the fit improves.  That way, we can not just assume a continuum yield, but actually measure it.  Since the yields of the DY and the b-bbar are very similar and given our statistics we can't really discriminate one from the other, we are mainly sensitive to the sum.  One way to study this is to keep their ratios fixed as in the plot above, but vary the overall yield of both of them  This adds one extra parameter to the fit to account for the total sum of the continuum yield.  We perform the fit in the region 5< m < 16 GeV/c2.

One issue is that the Crystal-Ball fit is a user defined function, and we use the integral of the function to fit, which seems to push ROOT to its limit in an interactive session with a macro interpreted on the fly.  This is alleviated somewhat by cleaning up the code to do the one-parameter fit in a compiled macro.  However, trying out the two-parameter fit directly seems to be too much for ROOT even in compiled mode and the code runs out of memory and seg-faults.  A (rather inelegant) way around this is to scale the continuum yield by hand, compile the macro each time and do the one-parameter fit. For each of those fits, one can obtain the chisquare/deg. of freedom.  This is shown in the plot below:

Fig. 2. Chisquare per degree of freedom as a function of the continuum yield (Drell-Yan + b-bbar).

We find a clear minimum, indicating that our data do have some sensitivity to the continuum yield.  The Rightmost point with 59.1 counts is the yield obtained directly from Pythia 8.108 and from Ramona's calculation.  Our data indicate that the yield is likely smaller by about a factor of 2, we obtain at the minimum a yield of 26.6 counts.  Since the yield of Upsilons is obtained from the same fit, our fitted Upsilon yield will increase with decreasing counts from the continuum.  This is shown below.

Fig. 3: Fitted yield of Upsilons for a given continuum yield.  The minimum found above is illustrated by the vertical line.

The corresponding plot with the fit at the minimum is shown below.

Fig. 4: Dielectron data with the curves for the DY and b-bbar at the yield which minimizes the chi-square.  In other words, the result of a (poor man's) two-parameter fit to find both the Upsilon yield and the Continuum yield.

The results of this fit give 14.5 counts for DY and 12.1 counts for b-bbar, i.e a factor 0.45 lower than the 32.3 counts for DY and the 26.8 counts for b-bbar is 26.8 obtained before.  Ramona's calculation for dsigma/dm |y|<1 gave 5.25 nb and the Pythia cross section b-bbar cross section times the BR into e+e- gives 6.5 nb, so our data indicate that we can decrease these by a factor 0.45 (or decrease one by essentially 100% and leave the other one unchanged).  The Upsilon yield in this case increases to 92.1 counts, which gives a cross section of 92.1/(1*0.054*9.6) = 178 pb.  So this has a large effect on the yield (92.1-64.338)/92.1 = 0.3, i.e. a 30% change in the yield (and hence in the cross section).  Note also that 178 pb is quite larger than our first estimate for the cross section.  This highlights the importance of getting the efficiency estimates right.

# Heavy Flavor Lepton

Heavy flavor leptons provide an extra handle on the open heavy flavor mesons, since they come from semi-leptonic decays of D and B mesons with significant branching ratios. Once produced, leptons do not participate in the strong interaction in the later stages of the collision, and remain a clean probe into the whole evolution of the system. Apart from TPC and TOF, BEMC is used to improve electron identification, and MTD is used for muon detection.

# Hidden Heavy Flavor

J/psi suppression was one of the proposed QGP signatures in the early days. Later, various cold nuclear matter effects were brought up to complicate the interpretation of J/psi measurements. Still, the study of J/psi collective motion deepens our understanding of the coalescence mechanism and the charm quark collectivity. We also reconstructed Upsilon and observed the suppression of Upsilon(1S+2S+3S).

# Open Heavy Flavor

More than 99% of charm quarks hadronize into open charm, D mesons. So the measurement of D mesons is a must for the determination of charm cross section. Due to the short life time, the low production rate and the high combinatorial background, the direct reconstruction of D mesons is difficult with the TPC pointing resolution. HFT will be employed to reconstruct the displaced vertex and greatly suppress the combinatorial background. This will also enable the D0 flow analysis, to ascertain the charm quark collectivity. Other open heavy flavor hadrons like Ds and Lambdac will also be studied with HFT.

# D0 v1 analysis documents

==> Section 1 <===
Dataset:

This analysis is based on the Au+Au collisions at \snn=200 GeV collected by the STAR experiments during the 2014 and 2016 runs. The 2014 run is processed with P16id library. The 2016 run is processed with P16ij. The analysis uses picoDst which is produced from MuDst. The details of the datasets can be found at:
http://www.star.bnl.gov/public/comp/prod/DataSummary.html

Event cuts:

A minimum-bias trigger is used. For run14, it denoted as “vpdmb-5-p-nobsmd” (450005,450015,450025) and “vpdmb-5-p-nobsmd-hlt” (450050,450060). For run16, it is denoted as “VPDMB-5-p-sst” (520001, 520011, 520021, 520031, 520041, 520051). The event selection cuts are:
1) |primary vertex in z direction| < 6 cm
2) |primary vertex in transverse direction| < 2 cm
3) |primary vertex z – vpdVz| < 3 cm
4)     ! ( PV_x < e-5 & PV_y < e-5 & PV_z < e-5)
vpdVz is the vertex z position calculated from time difference measured by two sides of VPD.
After passing cuts there are 831 M events in run14 and 990 M events in run16.

Good run list:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/rksooraj/good-run-lists-hft-embedding

RunQA:

==> Section 2 <===
D0 reconstruction
Single track cuts:

1Daughter selection
1) Global tracks
2) pT > 0.6 GeV/c
3) |eta| < 1
4) nHitsFit ≥ 20, in TPC
5) nHits/nHitsMax ≥ 0.52
6) HFT track: hasPxl1Hit() && hasPxl2Hit() && (hasIstHit() || hasSstHit())
7) fabs(geometricSignedDistance(pVtx)) > 0.005

pion PID:
isTPCPion = |nSigmaPion| < 3.0, based on TPC dE/dx
If TOF is available: |1/β − 1/βexp| < 0.03 and isTPCPion
If TOF is not available: isTPCPion

kaon PID:
isTPCKaon = |nSigmaKaon| < 2.0, based on TPC dE/dx
If TOF is available: |1/β − 1/βexp| < 0.03 and isTPCKaon
If TOF is not available: isTPCKaon

D0 topological cuts:

The geometrical cuts are same as in the D0 v2 analysis, which is from TMVA estimation. (https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/note_6.pdf). The values are:

==> Section 3 <===
Efficiency calculation and spectra
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Status_D0v1_PreQM_23Mar.pdf

==> Section 4 <===
D0 v1 results

==> Section 5 <===
Systematics
Charged hadron v1 (Run14 vs. Run16)

v2 in different rapidity bins Run14 vs. Run16

Luminosity dependence
drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Luminosity_effect_on_D0v1.pdf

Link to Overleaf page for analysis note preparation:

# Jet-like correlations

A jet is a spray of hadrons produced by the “hard” scattering of a parton (quark or gluon). A hard scattering is one in which a large amount of energy is transferred between partons.

Hard scatterings occur early in a heavy-ion collision, allowing the scattered partons to act as probes of the medium created in these collisions.

The modifications of jets measured in Au+Au collisions compared to p+p collisions is interpreted to be an effect of the large densities in Au+Au collisions.  Such modifications have been measured in a variety of observables.

- Suppression of hadrons measured at high transverse momentum (pT)

- Suppression of the away-side jet measured in 2-particle correlations, when selecting a high pT trigger particle

Ongoing analyses in this Physics Working Group focus on correlations measured between particles to further understand jet modifications in the medium produced in Au+Au collisions.  Such analyses include:
- Untriggered 2-particle correlation measurements in 2 dimensions
- Particle-identified particle correlations
- 2+1 correlation measurements
- Direct-photon-triggered correlations
- Studies of the long range correlation in pseudorapidity observed in central Au+Au collisions
- Full jet reconstruction
- High pT single-particle hadron measurements at lower beam energies

# Current physics analysis/paper proposals

Current jetcorr physics analysis/paper proposals

 Color code Finished Collaboration review GPC review Post-PWGC-preview; draft among PA's or under PWG review Proposal stage

# Event Structure

Some of the methods commonly used in EStruct are described in the Tutorials (public).  Conference and seminar talks are linked from Talks (public) and publications are found Publications (public).  To see our work in progress visit In Progress (internal).

# Quick-Reference Guide

Papers by Event Structure group and selected papers by group members. Suggestions and updates are welcome.

 Project Title Paper URL Analysis URL Version Notes: Dynamic Texture Transverse-momentum dependent modification of dynamic texture in central Au+Au collisions at sqrt(sNN) = 200 GeV arxiv page final nucl-ex/0407001 PRC 71, 031901(R) Mean Pt Event-by-Event fluctuations in Au-Au collisions at 130 GeV PRC arxiv page final nucl-ex/0308033 PRC 71, 064906 (2005) Inversion method Autocorrelations from fluctuation scale dependence by inversion arxiv final hep-ph/0410182 J Phys G 31 809-824 Hijing Scaling Autocorrelations from the scale dependence of transverse-momentum fluctuations in Hijing-simulated Au-Au collisions at 200 sqrt(s_NN) = GeV arxiv final hep-ph/0410180 PLB 632, 197 Axial CD Hadronization Geometry and charge-dependent number autocorrelations on axial momentum space in Au-Au collisions at 130 GeV PLB arxiv page final nucl-ex/0406035 PLB 634, 347 Axial CI Minijet deformation on axial momentum space observed with charge-independent number autocorrelations from Au-Au collisions at root-s = 130 GeV PRC arxiv page final nucl-ex/0411003 PRC 73, 064907 (2006) Pt Scaling Transverse-momentum pt correlations on momentum subspace (eta,p hi) from mean-pt fluctuations in Au-Au collisions at 200 GeV JPG arxiv page final nucl-ex/0509030 J Phys G 32 L37 p-p spectra Multiplicity dependence of inclusive pt spectra from p-p collisions at sqrt {s} = 200 GeV PRD arxiv page final nucl-ex/0606028 PRD 74, 032006 Xt-Xt Two-particle correlations on tranverse momentum and minijet dissipation in Au-Au collisions at 130 GeV JPG arxiv page final nucl-ex/0408012 J Phys G 34 799 Energy Dep The energy dependence of mean-pt fluctuations and corresponding pt correlations in heavy ion collisions at the SPS and RHIC arxiv page final nucl-ex/0605021 J Phys G 34 451 ytxyt Two-particle correlations on transverse rapidity in p-p collisions at sqrt(s) = 200 GeV draft page 1.13 In GPC power law centrality A power-law description of heavy-ion collision centrality arxiv hep-ph/0411217 fragmentation function Extrapolating parton fragmentation to low Q^2 in e+e- collisions PRD arxiv final hep-ph/0606249 PRD 74 034012

# Analysis Results

These are some links to analysis results (not necessarily papers), some in progress, some published. This section is under construction, please contribute pages.

# Papers in progress

Note: The papers in draft stages (may be in pwg review or collaboration review) are listed in "Papers in progress". Not all papers are from ES PWG (ex: simulation/methods paper or some belong to the other PWG) but strongly related with ES studies.
The papers before a draft exists but a plan and outline exist are listed in "Planned papers".

"Anomalous centrality evolution of minijet angular correlations from Au-Au collisions at sqrt{s_NN} = 62 and 200 GeV"

Information - PAs: Michael Daugherity, Lanny Ray, Tom Trainor, Duncan Prindle

Status: In GPC

"Energy and centrality dependence of the azimuth quadrupole moment of pt-integrated hadron distributions from Au-Au collisions at sqrt{s_NN}= 62 and 200 GeV"

PAs:  David Kettler, Tom Traino